Ive ordered stalker!!!

Darkwave · 7 Apr 2007 at 17:05

dbmzk1 said:
Just because something makes a game run slower does not make it "tacked-on" the last time I checked. Not that it matters either way.

No, I agree. The fact it makes 8800s crawl and was suddenly "implimented" when Half Life 2 was released makes it tacked-on.

Stalker was meant to be a DirectX 8 game from the get-go, but Valve made GCS poopy in their pants.

dbmzk1 said:
Now I'm not saying STALKER is coded perfectly or even fully optimized, I'm sure they could improve it, but generally full dynamic lighting makes it run slower because it has a hell of a lot more to do. Same reason outside goes slower than inside. Simple really.

Also because it is tacked-on and poorly optimised.

alexisonfire · 7 Apr 2007 at 17:15

dbmzk1 said:
Just because something makes a game run slower does not make it "tacked-on" the last time I checked. Not that it matters either way.

Now I'm not saying STALKER is coded perfectly or even fully optimized, I'm sure they could improve it, but generally full dynamic lighting makes it run slower because it has a hell of a lot more to do. Same reason outside goes slower than inside. Simple really.

Dynamic lighting has hardly any noticeable effect over static lighting when in outside areas. So why is the performance so different? Because its badly coded. I can understand the performance hit when indoors because the graphics difference is huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge.

Darkwave · 7 Apr 2007 at 17:19

Let's not forget that GSC stole textures from Half Life 2 and Doom 3, god only knows where they cut and pasted the engine code from to make the shambles we're playing. :eek:

dbmzk1 · 7 Apr 2007 at 17:34

alexisonfire said:
Dynamic lighting has hardly any noticeable effect over static lighting when in outside areas. So why is the performance so different? Because its badly coded. I can understand the performance hit when indoors because the graphics difference is huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge.

No noticeable difference? Must be a different game your talking about then because I can clearly see some pretty major differences.

I see soft shadows and HDR/bloom instantly. I'm sure theres more if you look deeper. These things don't come cheap and will slow you down for what I thought where pretty obvious reasons.

Also I wouldn't call something implemented 3 years ago "tacked-on".

Not the best shots for comparison I know, but I forgot I went back to the start trader haha.

Darkwave · 7 Apr 2007 at 17:37

dbmzk1 said:
Also I wouldn't call something implemented 3 years ago "tacked-on".

Considering they seem to have spent the last three years standing around with their thumbs up their bums instead of actually doing any work, I think that I can safely assume that the DirectX 9 features in this game were "tacked on" in a panic response to Valve coming out with Half Life 2.

Same way a lot of the textures were stolen from Doom 3 and Half Life 2.

They didn't even bother to rename the textures that they stole, which is kind of a give-away.

dbmzk1 · 7 Apr 2007 at 17:47

Ulfhedjinn said:
Considering they seem to have spent the last three years standing around with their thumbs up their bums instead of actually doing any work, I think that I can safely assume that the DirectX 9 features in this game were "tacked on" in a panic response to Valve coming out with Half Life 2.

And that's your mature and highly thought out and truthful response? Come off it!

Ulfhedjinn said:
Same way a lot of the textures were stolen from Doom 3 and Half Life 2.

They didn't even bother to rename the textures that they stole, which is kind of a give-away.

I must admit I've not heard this before, source? But have you considered the fact that the textures might be from some kind of texture store where game devs can purchase a texture? I VERY much doubt they would steal anything or risk a rather large lawsuit.

You seem to have a lot of negative things to say about this game. Why bother both playing it and posting about it? :confused:

Fubsy · 7 Apr 2007 at 17:49

He's been bashing it for weeks on end now, leave him to it.

Darkwave · 7 Apr 2007 at 18:01

dbmzk1 said:
And that's your mature and highly thought out and truthful response? Come off it!

Great counter-point, I am sure convinced.

dbmzk1 said:
I must admit I've not heard this before, source? But have you considered the fact that the textures might be from some kind of texture store where game devs can purchase a texture? I VERY much doubt they would steal anything or risk a rather large lawsuit.

http://www.shacknews.com/ja.zz?comments=46449

dbmzk1 said:
You seem to have a lot of negative things to say about this game. Why bother both playing it and posting about it?

Fubar said:
He's been bashing it for weeks on end now, leave him to it.

I'm not allowed to have a negative opinion about something? :confused:

There's a lot of things I enjoy about Stalker, It's just that the buggy and lazy engine is not one of them.

titaniumx3 · 7 Apr 2007 at 20:20

I run it flawlessly on an X2 4400 @ 2.5ghz/2gb DDR400/X1900XT 512mb with near max details at 1280x1024, getting 40fps average. Your system should be fine. That said I noticed in some areas the game engine gobbles up the full 512mb on my card so I'm guessing that might cause a problem with 256mb/320mb cards though some people report no issues.

While I won't deny the awful stability and performance issues many people are experiencing, I think its misleading to say the game itself sucks. I've played it through with no problems and I can safely say the game is a masterpiece, definitely in my top 10 best games ever list.

Andelusion · 7 Apr 2007 at 20:37

Haven't read the thread, but my system is relatively similar to yours.

I run it at 1680x1050, full dynamic lighting, max detail on textures, 50% view distance (I've noticed no difference between 100/50), grass density at about 50%, no grass shadow.

No AA/AF obviously, as it isn't supported apparently. I think I'm getting at least 30fps most of the time, I only get lag at night time when there's a lot of lightening.

Don't worry!

Darkwave · 7 Apr 2007 at 20:52

titaniumx3 said:
I run it flawlessly on an X2 4400 @ 2.5ghz/2gb DDR400/X1900XT 512mb with near max details at 1280x1024, getting 40fps average.

This game must hate Core 2 Duo processors and 8800GTS 640MB cards then, because that's the same performance and settings I use (previously 1440x900 instead of 1280x1024, practically the same though, and 1680x1050 now.)

Andelusion said:
No AA/AF obviously, as it isn't supported apparently.

Good news is anisotropic filtering works fine.

Mephisto · 7 Apr 2007 at 20:54

titaniumx3 said:
I run it flawlessly on an X2 4400 @ 2.5ghz/2gb DDR400/X1900XT 512mb with near max details at 1280x1024, getting 40fps average.

Flawlessly and 40fps? Isn't that somewhat of a contradiction? 40fps is totally unacceptable in my mind.

Darkwave · 7 Apr 2007 at 20:56

Mephisto said:
Flawlessly and 40fps? Isn't that somewhat of a contradiction? 40fps is totally unacceptable in my mind.

For a game that looks so rubbish, I completely agree.

dbmzk1 · 8 Apr 2007 at 02:36

Fubar said:
He's been bashing it for weeks on end now, leave him to it.

You know, your right. I might just do that

setter · 8 Apr 2007 at 04:14

is it a demanding game system wise, just a friend of mine got it and tried to install it on a 500 quid laptop (he's not to well up on system requirements)
so i bought it of him for a tenner and 2 pints in the pub tonight so was that a good deal

alexisonfire · 8 Apr 2007 at 11:06

setter said:
is it a demanding game system wise, just a friend of mine got it and tried to install it on a 500 quid laptop (he's not to well up on system requirements)
so i bought it of him for a tenner and 2 pints in the pub tonight so was that a good deal

As long as the pints cost less than £7, yes.

Darkwave · 8 Apr 2007 at 12:03

dbmzk1 said:
You know, your right. I might just do that

You should just do us both a favour and put me on your ignore list if my negative opinions bother you, as I have a lot of them about a great many things.

Glad to see that whole freedom of opinion thing is working though. :rolleyes:

kdd · 8 Apr 2007 at 16:14

The game looks pretty good with the lighting thing on full but runs like carp. Is it me or do the textures and shadows get a lot worse when you disable the lighting thingy?

Darkwave · 8 Apr 2007 at 16:18

kdd said:
The game looks pretty good with the lighting thing on full but runs like carp. Is it me or do the textures and shadows get a lot worse when you disable the lighting thingy?

Static lighting removes most of the bump mapping on textures, looks flatter.

titaniumx3 · 8 Apr 2007 at 17:04

Mephisto said:
Flawlessly and 40fps? Isn't that somewhat of a contradiction? 40fps is totally unacceptable in my mind.

Ok, flawlessly is a little too optimistic but I get around 25-60 fps (150+fps if I look up at the sky

) which for the this type of game is acceptable to me. It's more like Oblivion than a straight forward fps and I know many people who play that at relatively low fps with no problems.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if I could play at 60+fps, but its not something thats gonna happen unless the devs do some major tweaking with the FDL renderer or if I get myself an 8800GTX. The key factor here is the style of gameplay; I wouldn't accept less than 60fps in BF2 but Stalker isn't BF2.

As for the graphics looking rubbish I can't really say much, since it is mostly a subjective point of discussion. All I can recommend is that you wait till the game is patched properley and the drivers are up to scratich since it is difficult to grasp certain aspects of the graphics engine without playing it through completely in a stable setup.