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

Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
It is obvious Bit tech never had patch 2 which fixes most crashes, also, i am on the Steam Chat, and dozens of people there absolutely love the game and very few had any crashes, the oenes that did literally had justa few in many hours of game time. Seriously giving this game a 3 is one of the most assinine things I have seen bit-tech ever do, especially a day after a patch is released that fixed most of the crash issues, and quest issues, and also performance improvement.

We installed patch 2

The first game had had no bugs for ages, very stable now there are many patches out for it. GSc suppors their games, even though they do release them buggy, they fix it very quickly.

Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Absolutely terrible review a day after the patch is out and before the official NA release, sorry, love bit-tech, way of your rockers on this one, talk to any game who has played it, nothing but praise, just shows reviews really do not mean much these days. Notice quite a few have no issues. I suggest revisiting this review as a 3 is simply inacceptable a game that offers as much thrilling moments/gameplay as CS, and it is very unique compared to the generic fare of today. The patch fixes these issues and is already out for gods sakes.

I don't think it's unfair to review a game before xyz patch is out, but it's probably worth delaying the review if a patch drops that makes a few of the complaints invalid the day before the review is published.

I'm mostly just wondering if bit-tech tested on a few different machines, ie. ati graphics, vista, etc. etc. Rather than 10 different variants of nvidia and xp32.

I'm not convinced the crashyness is a game issue as such, but some weird driver quirks. ISTR SoC was very picky about drivers too.

The fact I've had like, 3 game crashes and 1 BSOD (mostly due to overclocks too far and alt-tabbing too much) with what I'd currently consider an unstable machine. well, that makes me wonder.

U installed patch 2? Old saves don't work, how did you play enough in one day from the start with the new patch to formulate the review? there are lots of chagnes including balancing in the patch.

Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
U installed patch 2? Old saves don't work, how did you play enough in one day from the start with the new patch to formulate the review? there are lots of chagnes including balancing in the patch.

We've tried every patch and played the game for well over 20 hours at various stages of patching... the game is still broken. FWIW, we've been staying in the office past 2am several times this week--Wednesday night I got home at 6am Thursday--so it's not hard to "have enough time" to play enough of the game to work out that it is, at large, incredibly buggy.

Originally Posted by Berk
I don't think it's unfair to review a game before xyz patch is out, but it's probably worth delaying the review if a patch drops that makes a few of the complaints invalid the day before the review is published.

I'm mostly just wondering if bit-tech tested on a few different machines, ie. ati graphics, vista, etc. etc. Rather than 10 different variants of nvidia and xp32.

I'm not convinced the crashyness is a game issue as such, but some weird driver quirks. ISTR SoC was very picky about drivers too.

The fact I've had like, 3 game crashes and 1 BSOD (mostly due to overclocks too far and alt-tabbing too much) with what I'd currently consider an unstable machine. well, that makes me wonder.

We delayed the review for a week in the hope that things would get better - the game has been out for 7 days... and we had the game a few days before launch.

Originally Posted by Tim S
We delayed the review for a week in the hope that things would get better - the game has been out for 7 days... and we had the game a few days before launch.

You say you tested patch 2 (V1.5.04 as far as I'm concerned), and delayed the review, yet the mention of the lack of a stamina bar is still there, without a note saying "oh, they added this in a patch"

Okay.

How about systems you tested it on, did you feed it to any ATI graphics based machines?

Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Absolutely terrible review a day after the patch is out and before the official NA release, sorry, love bit-tech, way of your rockers on this one, talk to any game who has played it, nothing but praise, just shows reviews really do not mean much these days. Notice quite a few have no issues. I suggest revisiting this review as a 3 is simply inacceptable a game that offers as much thrilling moments/gameplay as CS, and it is very unique compared to the generic fare of today. The patch fixes these issues and is already out for gods sakes.

While I respect your opinion do you not see that you're the only person here with such issues - virtually everyone in the Stalker thread in the gaming forum has had problems.

Half the reason why you've not had as much problems is your 4870 - this is an "ATI title" from what I've been told, whereas Nvidia TWIMTBP program tests on both platforms. It's essentially broken for a vast majority of Nvidia people (and ATI also if you read the official forums) and this was sent to retail three weeks earlier than it should have done and if you apply the patch you have to start again too because it breaks save games.

As much as I wanted to give this a 7 or and 8, it's a broken product that's incredibly frustrating.

If you go to the official forums it's literally littered with people complaining of CTDs and BSODs. We never go to this much effort with any other game, why should STALKER be any different? If someone released a graphics card and it was broken for 3 weeks, you wouldn't accept that.

You are clearly very passionate about the game, and find it hard to accept that so many others have had problems because it's not a first hand experience. I'd LOVE to have had your perfect experience, and that's partly why I pushed to test it for hours on multiple systems - I was here until 2am playing it then Joe carried on the next day.

The patch was only out yesterday EVENING, I ask again, how did you test for a week? It was JUSt released. Sorry, do not agrere witht his at all. The new patch you would have had to Satrt a new game yesteday. BS.

Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
The patch was only out yesterday EVENING, I ask again, how did you test for a week? It was JUSt released. Sorry, do not agrere witht his at all. The new patch you would have had to Satrt a new game yesteday. BS.

My bad, we installed two patches... so I assumed "patch 2" was the second patch. Obviously, that's not the case. If the patch was released yesterday evening, then it's not one we've used. However, how long is a piece of string and how long do you want us to wait to review a game? The game has been on sale for a week and we've been playing it for all of that time.

As Joe has said, it's a game we're going to come back to, but right now all evidence points to brokenness. Had it not been as buggy as we found, we wanted to give this something more like a 7 or 8 based on gameplay alone.

Originally Posted by Bindibadgi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Absolutely terrible review a day after the patch is out and before the official NA release, sorry, love bit-tech, way of your rockers on this one, talk to any game who has played it, nothing but praise, just shows reviews really do not mean much these days. Notice quite a few have no issues. I suggest revisiting this review as a 3 is simply inacceptable a game that offers as much thrilling moments/gameplay as CS, and it is very unique compared to the generic fare of today. The patch fixes these issues and is already out for gods sakes.

While I respect your opinion do you not see that you're the only person here with such issues - virtually everyone in the Stalker thread in the gaming forum has had problems.

Half the reason why you've not had as much problems is your 4870 - this is an "ATI title" from what I've been told, whereas Nvidia TWIMTBP program tests on both platforms. It's essentially broken for a vast majority of Nvidia people (and ATI also if you read the official forums) and this was sent to retail three weeks earlier than it should have done and if you apply the patch you have to start again too because it breaks save games.

As much as I wanted to give this a 7 or and 8, it's a broken product that's incredibly frustrating.

If you go to the official forums it's literally littered with people complaining of CTDs and BSODs. We never go to this much effort with any other game, why should STALKER be any different? If someone released a graphics card and it was broken for 3 weeks, you wouldn't accept that.

You are clearly very passionate about the game, and find it hard to accept that so many others have had problems because it's not a first hand experience. I'd LOVE to have had your perfect experience, and that's partly why I pushed to test it for hours on multiple systems - I was here until 2am playing it then Joe carried on the next day.

With all due respect, how many forums you been on, every time a game launches game forums, which represent a very small minority of actual players, the forums erupt into a complain fest, peopel with no issues do not go to forums to say, hey, game runs fine for me. At the same time, yes, it is buggy, but, GSC releases fixes fast, and SOC was just as bad at launch, but it wasn't long before the game was very stable and very few bugs at all, CS will be the same, the third patch notes have already been leaked on the Stalker forums. It is buggy, but not NEAR as bad as Bittech let on. It is averaging 80% in reviews, a 3 is ridiculous, and no other reviewes had as many issues as bit-tech.

The game is not supposed t be OFFICIALLY released until the 15th, so the majority of people will already have the second patch (1.5.4) when they first play it. Yes, GSC are guilty of being a small dev with big ambitious projects and their games at launch have issues but a 3 is way off base, especially when a patch fixes MOST of these issues before the official NA release. Why some places sold it early, Don't know.

I personally still had issues with the original S.T.A.L.K.E.R. well down the line - it's one of those games I've tried to include in our hardware articles, but it was never stable enough to do so from my perspective. It might be different now though, as I looked at the game when each of the first three patches came out.

Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
The game is not supposed t be OFFICIALLY released until the 15th, so the majority of people will already have the second patch (1.5.4) when they first play it. Yes, GSC are guilty of being a small dev with big ambitious projects and their games at launch have issues but a 3 is way off base, especially when a patch fixes MOST of these issues before the official NA release. Why some places sold it early, Don't know.

Err, it was actually available to buy in GameStation and Game on Bracknell High Street last Friday. And Bracknell High Street isn't exactly centre of the universe. The reason? That was the official release date in the UK - it was sat on the "New Releases" shelf in both stores.

Noone can really blame bit-tech for having troubles with unproperly tested game. If they experienced serious crashes on different PCs, then it's problem of developers. I doubt they have thrown the game away after few crashes without trying to solve it...

I think clear sky has everything going for it and if they can clear up the bugs early on it will do well against the compition definitely in the
top ten

Oh dear glad i did,nt buy this,sounds about as good as the first one.got it free with my motherboard and still sitting in the box waiting to be played.

I think Bit-tech made a fair call on this one. If it is this buggy on MULTIPLE systems after a week of consistent testing, it is a broken product. That's it. If it's not broken for some people, great, but in all likeliness it will be for the majority of users, which a review has to cater for. Also no game review should be held back more than a week imo, especially single player, and the review must go up considering the current state of the game. All the fanboys need to get over themselves and accept the fact that for many this game presents a completely unacceptable experience, thus the 3 is justified.

Originally Posted by Mentai
I think Bit-tech made a fair call on this one. If it is this buggy on MULTIPLE systems after a week of consistent testing, it is a broken product. That's it. If it's not broken for some people, great, but in all likeliness it will be for the majority of users, which a review has to cater for. Also no game review should be held back more than a week imo, especially single player, and the review must go up considering the current state of the game. All the fanboys need to get over themselves and accept the fact that for many this game presents a completely unacceptable experience, thus the 3 is justified.

My view exactly. We will revisit this later and we praise the gameplay heavily - I still love how visceral the combat feels in STALKER and Clear Sky very much and will relish a chance to play a stable release. However, we have to bear in mind that people are potentially going to take our review as a reason to spend £30 on this game and given that it just isn't stable at all we can't score it highly. Three systems with different hardware and it still isn't working? That's a broken game.

woah, loads of bickering here... from a standpoint of someone who only played the original for a few hours, as it crashed and it didnt really grab me so i didnt persist with it, just sold it on...bit-tech review a game from their experience and unqiue colletive perspective of being more objective than the fanboys that are appearing on here. The game was unstable for them, not just Joe, but Rich and Tim who are very experienced reviewers so i think you should concede your point of your version being flawless, or start your own website and right about it there. you could have simply mentioned it here and they could have acknowledged it, but you appear to have a real thorn in your side(i cant remember who you are, but you all know!!) about what bit-tech has written and whilst this is a forum and is designed to allow people the right to their opinion, my enterpretation on what those flaming the review have written, you simply fail to actually listen to what any of the writers are saying.

peace

fatman

I do not agree with this review; the game has had two patches since release and it feels like you are only focusing on its negatives.

You dedicated an entire page to its bugs. It's supposed to be a review, not a QA report.

You felt that it was necessary to update the comment about Stamina but decidedly ignored the fact that the recent patches bring the game to an acceptably playable state.

Originally Posted by mrb_no1
woah, loads of bickering here... from a standpoint of someone who only played the original for a few hours, as it crashed and it didnt really grab me so i didnt persist with it, just sold it on...bit-tech review a game from their experience and unqiue colletive perspective of being more objective than the fanboys that are appearing on here. The game was unstable for them, not just Joe, but Rich and Tim who are very experienced reviewers so i think you should concede your point of your version being flawless, or start your own website and right about it there. you could have simply mentioned it here and they could have acknowledged it, but you appear to have a real thorn in your side(i cant remember who you are, but you all know!!) about what bit-tech has written and whilst this is a forum and is designed to allow people the right to their opinion, my enterpretation on what those flaming the review have written, you simply fail to actually listen to what any of the writers are saying.

peace

fatman

What part of THE NEW PATCH fixes this didn't you understand?

my freind is a STALKER junkie, and lent me it breifly so I could see why it was crashing so much.


conclusion: It likes ATI cards of a generation ago (early HD-series)


I have no idea why that is, but the number of crashes dropped 50% on ATI cards. I did still encounter problems, but these are easily isolated as badly written sections of code as they are repeatable.

Great review, and it's refreshing to see the game scored both as a game AND a product which a consumer may spend money on.

I think Lepermessiah's points are pretty much irrelevant, because it's about damn time games were released in a playable state instead of pathetically unplayable until patch 2 or 3, regardless of how quickly those patches come.

If those problems could have been so easily fixed by a patch and so soon, then the game shouldn't have gone gold for another week, and should have had those problems fixed before a master disc was sent to the publisher.
Perhaps the publisher rushed the developers, as is often the case, but it's no excuse in my eyes and I don't think it really matters where the blame lies - The end result is still an unfinished, unplayable product sitting on the shelves, and this review reflects that.

A game should not need that many patches so soon after release, never mind patches released before release.
Sure, it shows dedication on the part of the developers that they want to get the game fixed, but these problems should have been fixed long before the game went gold.

Problems in the LUACode for scripting of major plot characters? That's just laughable.

Originally Posted by devilhood

You dedicated an entire page to its bugs. It's supposed to be a review, not a QA report.

The fact that Bit-Tech have dedicated an entire page of the review to highlighting the game's bugs is a testament to the poor state of the game on release, not an indication of bad reviewing.
If the game weren't so bugged, it wouldn't be such an issue - Seems logical enough to me.

I think the review shows integrity, and I'm genuinely glad to see a game judged on all of it's merits and failings, not just the graphics and "omglollookattehshadowsandlights" that the other reviews seem to focus on.

Originally Posted by devilhood
You dedicated an entire page to its bugs. It's supposed to be a review, not a QA report.

A review is just that and saying that QA shouldn't be a part of the review when we're having so many problems is incredibly short-sighted. Think of a review as more of a lab report and you'll see why there's a page on bugs. Because there are so many.

I did the same with Quad SLI if you remember. It's not normal practice for sure, because normally the bugs don't get in the way of the experience in quite the same way they have here (or with Quad SLI for that matter).