S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2: Heart of Chornobyl

[PanteraNera]

I had to wait for mods to do a complete graphic overhaul before it became playable for me, and I'm not a graphics whore at all.

Shows how different tastes are, because I was like WTF?! when I read that quote.

I have a highend system (4090 RTX, 7800x3d, 64GB RAM) for a reason. Still I was fucking surprised how good SoC looked vanilla. I tried some graphic mods but to me they looked worse than the originals. Especially as some added shit like some female Stalkers that looked out of place.

Also keep in mind, I am not a Stalker fan, in fact I have never finished one before but I gladly play SoC instead of Stalker 2 as it has to offer more (gameplay).

And while I do like good graphics, hence why I bought that expensive ass rig, I think it is quite amusing that I have more fun playing old games or unoptimized indie games, as most of the AA-AAA games are utter shit.

 

[United Nations]

I had to wait for mods to do a complete graphic overhaul before it became playable for me, and I'm not a graphics whore at all.

Shows how different tastes are, because I was like WTF?! when I read that quote.

I have a highend system (4090 RTX, 7800x3d, 64GB RAM) for a reason. Still I was fucking surprised how good SoC looked vanilla. I tried some graphic mods but to me they looked worse than the originals. Especially as some added shit like some female Stalkers that looked out of place.

Also keep in mind, I am not a Stalker fan, in fact I have never finished one before but I gladly play SoC instead of Stalker 2 as it has to offer more (gameplay).

And while I do like good graphics, hence why I bought that expensive ass rig, I think it is quite amusing that I have more fun playing old games or unoptimized indie games, as most of the AA-AAA games are utter shit.

I don't like most big budget games either.

Almost all of the games that I play are indie titles. Some, like STALKER, become cult favorites years down the road.

For instance, I beat Diablo IV about a year ago and it was extremely mediocre (big fan of Diablo II though)... It was over-polished to the extreme, as is clearly evident by the insanely long credits roll.

Again, not listening to all the dumbasses that hate on Complete, but playing Complete compared to vanilla STALKER was like night and day to me.

Oh... And FYI--Complete is the most downloaded and one of the highest rated SOC mod on moddb.com, so I'm not alone in my positive opinion of it.

 

[HumanTotemPole]

It's the touch of the individual artist's hand that makes any kind of art any good, and Stalker 2 feels like it has very little of that.

Behold, good art, made with the touch of the artist's hand!

Some of you have mythologized the OG series to the extent that you've left reality.

Dial back the revisionism here lads. SHOC was absolutely considered a good-looking game in 2007 and was used to benchmark graphics cards.

I would also point out that, regardless of any technical quality compared to today's graphics, those faces are all distinct and immediately evocative of each character regardless of how minor they are in the overall story. I immediately think of the Agroprom fight on seeing Mole - hallmark of effective visual design.

If graphics-whoring is gaining traction on here we're fucked.

 

[Harthwain]

It's the touch of the individual artist's hand that makes any kind of art any good, and Stalker 2 feels like it has very little of that.

Behold, good art, made with the touch of the artist's hand!

Some of you have mythologized the OG series to the extent that you've left reality.

Dial back the revisionism here lads. SHOC was absolutely considered a good-looking game in 2007 and was used to benchmark graphics cards.

I would also point out that, regardless of any technical quality compared to today's graphics, those faces are all distinct and immediately evocative of each character regardless of how minor they are in the overall story. I immediately think of the Agroprom fight on seeing Mole - hallmark of effective visual design.

If graphics-whoring is gaining traction on here we're fucked.

I think it is possible for both of you to be correct here.

It is true that the game was looking good back then and even today it's holding up pretty well, considering its age. But let's not kid ourselves that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 1 is a visual "work of art", like some idiot tried to preach a page ago or so. People who are unironically saying that are indeed retarded and should take a pill to go back to reality.

The real problem is not the models in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2. It is the fact that we got better visuals, but lack the solid mechanical foundation that the previous game had. This is the primary reason for me to not buy the sequel, despite my love for the first game.

 

[Reever]

I had to step back and quit the game after SIIRCA base Not only was that whole section extremely boring, in my opinion, it shows Skif as a complete fucking idiot. His whole motivation for risking his life in the Zone, fighting countless bandits and mutants, having this dumb revenge plot against Dalin, was because his apartment burned down? I thought they would've AT LEAST mentioned some family members dying or something like that but they specifically say that he was a loner with no friends/family. How do you make a protagonist this fucking unrelatable? And it's not like Strelok or Degtyarev were the epitome of character development, but at least they were just boring. Not this aggressively stupid.

 

[ArchAngel]

I had to step back and quit the game after SIIRCA base Not only was that whole section extremely boring, in my opinion, it shows Skif as a complete fucking idiot. His whole motivation for risking his life in the Zone, fighting countless bandits and mutants, having this dumb revenge plot against Dalin, was because his apartment burned down? I thought they would've AT LEAST mentioned some family members dying or something like that but they specifically say that he was a loner with no friends/family. How do you make a protagonist this fucking unrelatable? And it's not like Strelok or Degtyarev were the epitome of character development, but at least they were just boring. Not this aggressively stupid.

Some people burn the world for their dog, some for their hard earned apartment.

 

[ultra loser]

The disaster of terrible AI, aborted A-Life, random spawn spam and NAFO agendas aside S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 is a pretty good showcase of diminishing returns in terms of graphics, games being made today don't look a whole lot better than games made a decade ago, throwing in PBR and very poor approximations of ray-tracing, something they had done for very cheap with passable methods of faking it for a long time, doesn't do as much as you might think for the game. The biggest difference is foliage density.

I hate lighting in modern games, every game is so soulless now, all of them look the same, gaytracing and realistic lighting was a mistake

 

[Melcar]

The original Stalkers were good looking games, just not the best of the era. What really used to impress me back then were the weather effects, sound and the dynamic world.

 

[NecroLord]

The original Stalkers were good looking games, just not the best of the era. What really used to impress me back then were the weather effects, sound and the dynamic world.

And the lighting and shadows.
Especially when it rained during the night.

 

[Konjad]

 

[Melcar]

The original Stalkers were good looking games, just not the best of the era. What really used to impress me back then were the weather effects, sound and the dynamic world.

And the lighting and shadows.
Especially when it rained during the night.

Yeah. I don't think I remember any game at the time that looked like that. Traveling the wilderness during a sudden storm was really something. I remember one time it stared raining and I took refuge in a random cave. Oh boy, big mistake. Shame that the games kept crashing on my ATI card.

 

[Dark Souls II]

It's the touch of the individual artist's hand that makes any kind of art any good, and Stalker 2 feels like it has very little of that.

Behold, good art, made with the touch of the artist's hand!

Some of you have mythologized the OG series to the extent that you've left reality.

Dial back the revisionism here lads. SHOC was absolutely considered a good-looking game in 2007 and was used to benchmark graphics cards.

I would also point out that, regardless of any technical quality compared to today's graphics, those faces are all distinct and immediately evocative of each character regardless of how minor they are in the overall story. I immediately think of the Agroprom fight on seeing Mole - hallmark of effective visual design.

If graphics-whoring is gaining traction on here we're fucked.

Vanilla SoC (with ZRP) is still a game that is:

a) good-looking
b) has a great gameplay (it has things like A-LIFE and BALLISTICS)
c) is bug-free

Real chads still play the original games. Only faggots and niggers play Stolkor 2. Facts.

 

[deuxhero]

But all that ‘pretty foliage’ now is usually just pictures, signboards without collision or physicality. You lose the whole worldly function and satisfaction of foliage.

The pictured game does actually have (relatively limited but present) foliage deformation and give that brush importance in stealth (it kinda has to since it's a hunting simulator)

 

[Konjad]

I tried Stalker 2 and while environment is beautiful the game itself is just boring. Every minute - after maybe first 2 hours - spent in it is just thinking "why play this, why not replay SoC or CoP"

 

[HumanTotemPole]

The original Stalkers were good looking games, just not the best of the era. What really used to impress me back then were the weather effects, sound and the dynamic world.

Tough ask to be the best when Crysis came out the same year. Which hilariously still looks better than its remaster aside from improved LODs and some individual VFX.