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

There is no need for all the BiT flaming. They can only test what they are given, and lots of reviews have mentioned the huge problems this game has been having. I still need to try the original again, as I had about 3 serious errors with that game, one due to sound (the game wouldnt start), one due to a bug in a conversation (the convo continued on a loop for ever) and the last time I played it the game just ignored my saves, so i had to start from the beginnning every time.

So, frankly, GSC have got plenty of history with this kind of thing. What is most disappointing is they have not changed their ways since last time. That said, I will still buy Clear Sky when I get a new graphics card, assuming the worst of the problems are solved in patches.

Originally Posted by devilhood
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.

There's a difference there. We dedicated an entire page to bugs, not out of spite, but because our experience showed us that it was an important issue that needed to be shown to potential buyers. Nor are we only focusing on the negatives as the first few pages show a lot of the stuff we like, like the weapons upgrade system and level design and graphics. The conclusions section is also full of likes and dislikes.

In the end, a game which goes on sale should not have this many bugs and should at least be stable. A few issues and bugs are natural and acceptable - one needs only look at the number of bug fixes in a 10/10 game like Baldur's Gate to see that even great games have problems in that department. This isn't like that however as these aren't spelling mistakes and AI problems, these are system-crashing, widespread issues.

As for the update, well we used the newest versions that were available to us at the time and we waited until the game had been released in the UK for a week. That means it's been released in Russia for about 3 weeks, and went Gold about a month ago. If we've waited that long, I think we're justified in publishing now as otherwise we would be forever waiting for the next patch and LeperMessiah would be here complaining that we weren't waiting for the patch that could be coming a month or a week after that. A game review should not be about waiting for patches and getting the best possibile experience at the cost of waiting eternally, it should be about reviewing the perfomance and playability of a game to the limit of your ability at a time. Which we did, even after we waited a week (from just the UK release as the game has been in the office for a time before that) for more patches to come.

As for the stamina update, we corrected that as it involved a specific and direct complaint we had made in the review and which had been unequivocally corrected. Performance and playability however is something we cannot test at this point without rewriting a completely new and fresh review...which we have already pledged to do in six months!

We could wait for the next patch, and the one after that - in the end there has to be a cut-off point and this was ours. In fact, if you look at the timeline then you'll see we spent far longer with the game than most publications and also gave it much more time to improve support and stability.

A game should be stable and playable for the majority when it is first released as a retail product. This isn't and that's why it was rated down.

Originally Posted by devilhood

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.

How can they review a game properly if the game itself has some massive issues? I thought the review was spot on, it's not Bit-Tech's fault Clear Sky/GSC Gameworld have gone backwards. Bit-Tech are review the product as a whole. The game is, as it stands not fit for sale, I knew that with or without Bit-Tech's intervention.

If Joe ignored the bugs and told people to go out and by the game, it's amazing and a great addition to the series then he'd be misinforming them. They'd come back, moaning and shouting obscenities at him for not warning them of how badly done this game is.

I love SHoC, and I hope I can love Clear Sky. I'm going to look past all the bugs as frankly I haven't had any crashes or witnessed any bugs mentioned in the review. However, I'm annoyed at how the performance of the game is in it's current state (before patches) and I'm really pissed they dicked about with inventory system and HUD to the point it becomes useless.

The story, it's nowhere near as engrossing as SHoC, but as I'm a fan I'll hold out and I'll continue with it as I've waited a long time for this game only to be initially disappointed.

Just be thankful this isn't a console game where it can't be updated via patches.

I gave up on STALKER after being hit in the face with a steel girder at the end of the last game. I mean seriously, a freaking girder to the pie hole man! Hours of dodging radioactive crap storms and guys with big freaking guns only to be brained by the ceiling? ... ..... .. .. .

Originally Posted by Silver51
I gave up on STALKER after being hit in the face with a steel girder at the end of the last game. I mean seriously, a freaking girder to the pie hole man! Hours of dodging radioactive crap storms and guys with big freaking guns only to be brained by the ceiling? ... ..... .. .. .

Don't even get me started on how monumentally lame that ending was. I play through the entire game and then I actually get punished for making too much money and deciding not to run through the now-completely hostile Duty camp? FTS.

Originally Posted by Silver51
I gave up on STALKER after being hit in the face with a steel girder at the end of the last game. I mean seriously, a freaking girder to the pie hole man! Hours of dodging radioactive crap storms and guys with big freaking guns only to be brained by the roof? ... ..... .. .. .

LOL

Yeah the endings in stalker were harsh, i got a bum ending for hording too much money! Lame!

However while stalker was insanely buggy for me (had a new 8800 and vista at the time sure that amplified the problems) it was a insanely playable game, i could sit down at it for hours and that isnt somthing ive done with a single player game for a few years if im honest.

Id rather have a game that is released with a ton of bugs which will get sorted in the space of a month which I love playing, than a game with no bugs that is dull as ditchwater like most single player games these days

it looks like they did not even test this thing before it went gold....

I am sure that in Bitech this bug has been the cause of most crashes . The game is completely unplayable if it appears this bug, crashes occur every 5 seconds at the place where it appears. A Russian modder fixed the bug day 26 or August 27. Only fixed officially in the second patch / 5 september in russian , and 11 of September for the multilenguage version

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1773500&postcount=374

The bug appears scored in the log file \ Stalker-STCS \ logs after happen.

The game for my , in a updated version , is great in the first part of the faction's wars and the artifact's quest, and very mediocre and lineal in the main missions , especially the last 3 maps. The game was not finished, nor the code, neither party playable. 80% of the game and things are assets that were in STALKER, activated or deactivated, is quite disappointing to see very few new or updated models, and only 4 new maps, 2 of them very linears and in outdoors.

heh, bugs aside this game is fun and the lighting effects really are awesome
im running it at 1920x1200 close to maxed out, (no AA, dropped one or 2 non-lighting effects down a step) on a 4870 and 3.5ghz q9450
in some places the framerate drops to around 30fps but its just about playable there, however most of the time its more like 50fps
the lighting effects really are quite pretty though :)

also, it managed to bsod you bindi? lolz, worst its done for me is crash to desktops
<3 ATi ;)

score of 3 is a little harsh though imo

3 is way off base, that issue was fixed in a patch, and before the patch was out the forums had fixes for it. I would rather have a game like Stalker be relaesed a little buggy, then not and the game be another Blah shooter. Great game.

It seems to me all games have been released with less and less quality testing over the last few years and just rushed out the door with the implicit implication it'll be fixed later, this is just taking the piss though. A beta too far imo.

Aye indeed, 3 out of 10, come on, I've seen you guys score total piss poor games 5 out of 10 and higher.

Yes you can score a DS title 3/10 that was made in a matter of days, but not an FPS on a PC, I don't even think that's possible tbh.

Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
It seems to me all games have been released with less and less quality testing over the last few years and just rushed out the door with the implicit implication it'll be fixed later, this is just taking the piss though. A beta too far imo.

I posted this in the other STALKER thread:

Originally Posted by Silver51
It seems that releasing broken products with the hope of later patches has become standard for the gaming industry. I guess in the last ten years with the widespread availability of the Internet as a patch delivery system, publishers have become sloppy.

It doesn't happen in other areas of industry. You don't buy a car and expect the wheels to be added in a later patch.

I stand by the comment, despite knowing how difficult it is to release a functioning product on the PC platform. Valve and Blizzard seem to have nailed getting good games out to people, that are predominantly stable. Even Indy developers seem to get this one right.

I guess the low score reflects the developers decision to sell the game in a non-working state, expecting to release patches after the public has effectively beta tested the game.

Originally Posted by Major
Aye indeed, 3 out of 10, come on, I've seen you guys score total piss poor games 5 out of 10 and higher.

No, I've played it a fair bit and bit-tech are right on the money with the score. It's the difference between a studio producing crap game professionally and a studio producing a good game unprofesionally (i.e. not finishing it properlly). Stalker: CS is the latter. A game that I would have given 6 out of 10 if it wasn't fundamentally flawed and with far too many bugs. It CTDs frequently and the 1.5.03 patch just made things worse by introducing new bugs. It plays and feels like a rough beta with polished graphics, not a finished game.

It's not to say there isn't anything not to like about this game, though I think you really have to be a fan of the first game to appreciate what is there that's good. Unfortunately all problems the game has is a real test of one's patience.

I'm surprised other reviewers have been so lenient with their scores and glossing over the bugs, etc.

Keep in mind, a game of this ambition, scope is being made by a small developer in the Ukraine, not saying that makes it right, but that is were the issue lies. I disagree with the guy above, 3 is way too harsh, tonens of people are playing without much of an issue. The game is ambitious, very large and tries a lot of unique ideas, GSC tends to bite off more then they can chew. Still, 3 is hogwash. I have seen other games on here get higher scors that were not even good games and in terrible states.

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.

Do you work at GSC?

Do you have any relevant comments?

Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Keep in mind, a game of this ambition, scope is being made by a small developer in the Ukraine, not saying that makes it right, but that is were the issue lies. I disagree with the guy above, 3 is way too harsh, tonens of people are playing without much of an issue. The game is ambitious, very large and tries a lot of unique ideas, GSC tends to bite off more then they can chew. Still, 3 is hogwash. I have seen other games on here get higher scors that were not even good games and in terrible states.

Right, so what you're saying is we should just lie about our experience and make it up based on what you say?

Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
... Still, 3 is hogwash. I have seen other games on here get higher scors that were not even good games and in terrible states.

The game was released broken, that's all there is to it. There is nothing to argue.

A broken game is no longer a game by definition, it becomes an exercise in bug fixing.

Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Do you have any relevant comments?

Do you? :|

Originally Posted by Jonelo
I am sure that in Bitech this bug has been the cause of most crashes . The game is completely unplayable if it appears this bug, crashes occur every 5 seconds at the place where it appears. A Russian modder fixed the bug day 26 or August 27. Only fixed officially in the second patch / 5 september in russian , and 11 of September for the multilenguage version

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1773500&postcount=374

The bug appears scored in the log file \ Stalker-STCS \ logs after happen.

The game for my , in a updated version , is great in the first part of the faction's wars and the artifact's quest, and very mediocre and lineal in the main missions , especially the last 3 maps. The game was not finished, nor the code, neither party playable. 80% of the game and things are assets that were in STALKER, activated or deactivated, is quite disappointing to see very few new or updated models, and only 4 new maps, 2 of them very linears and in outdoors.

very nice,

will have to give that one a go (freind speaks fluent russian so it shouldn't be an issue for him)

I still think Bit-Tech did the best review with the shell of a game they were given. Yes the results vary from system to system but that is to be expected and always occurs. There are a few lucky ones with near flawless game play and there are those that can't run the game at all. So I think they gave the game a justified rating. It is a shame and I am sure most of us thought it would receive a 7 or an 8 but that's how it was rated and unless future patches fix the problems then it will probably stay this way. So GIVE BIT-TECH A BREAK.

Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Keep in mind, a game of this ambition, scope is being made by a small developer in the Ukraine, not saying that makes it right, but that is were the issue lies.

Nope. The first game Shadows was overly ambitious. How long was that in development hell? And Shadows itself came out rushed and slightly unfinished like a rough diamond only because GSC were under legal pressure by THQ to deliver the game. That's why a lot got dropped out of the original (epicness) and we got crap like that Gawd awful cliched teleporting crap at the end.

A fair few of the original people who worked on Shadows left GSC soon afterwards. What remained of GSC just re-gigged/borrowed what they already had, added a few new bits and took a step backwards to a more generic FPS with the content. It shows. Clear Sky lacks a lot of the original's charm and atmosphere. The-STALKER-game-the-way-it-was-meant-to-be it certainly ain't, as they were promising us.

And I wouldn't say tons of people aren't having any issues as I've visited a fair few forums. I'd say a minority are having a problem free experience, either they're jammy gits or rabid fanboys being oblivious to any flaws. Most are having CTDs by the very least.

3 out of 10 is harsh, but I think justified against GSC's totally slap-dash approach to releasing such an unfinished product. It's like ordering a cake and then finding it hasn't been cooked properly, there isn't any filling and the icing looks like it been dropped onto it from high height. Nice cake, but a bloody mess.

It seems some people just look over the contents section then skip to the last page and look at the number. They clearly explain that the game has 2 different scores depending on which way you look at it, and in the end they had to look at it from that specific point of view.

To state that just because the patch is out and that most people will have it when they buy it, doesn't look at the big picture. More then just the hardcore game on a pc. What about the mother that buys her kid the game? That game box isn't miraculously going to have the patch pre-applied. The game out of the box is still going to have these issues. Not everyone patches things like they should, and many don't even know how. Just because people have pc's that they play games on doesn't mean they actually patch them. Yes, virtually everyone here knows and patches their games, but that doesn't mean everyone does.

Bit-tech explained their reasoning on the score, and it makes perfect sense. It seems that some people don't actually read the reviews, or they choose to completely ignore the content and look at the big number at the end.

Gameplay and graphics aren't everything. A game that crashes and simply doesn't work on many systems IS an issue and should be looked at as such. To have to wait for patches to play a game you dropped $30-$70 on is ridiculous. The fact that many people accept this is what encourages it to keep occurring.

Also, I could care less if it is a small ambitious developer or a large heartless one, if its money out of my pocket the game NEEDS to work, UNCONDITIONALLY.

:(

I wanted to get this for my 21st. *sigh*

I will have to resign myself to the fact that there are no amazing games I have not already completed! I even managed to finish Arma despite the horrible, horrible bugs in that. I bought clear sky for my friend actually and in order to get the sky to work I had to change it from full screen to windowed mode. Something to do with his geforce 7300 and incompatibility with the stalker engine.