S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2: The Search for More Money

 These guys have such a following, they could probably start an online fundraiser or paid beta thing and be totally fine.

Really hoping these guys get the money to get this out.

Wasn't this also the suggested subtitle for the sequel to Spaceballs?

I absolutely loved stalker and the developers did a good job of fixing the game post release. The game was ambitious, challenging and facinating. Also, call of pripyat(the second expansion) is possibly a better starting point and feels like a very refined experience. Call of pripyat with the complete mod is simply astonishing to behold on a high spec PC and plays great too. I really hope so much that they can get funding. I would love to see what those guys could do with a stable financial base!!!

Good. Better an elongated dev time than a sequel getting botched by a completely different studio.

@Eurobum said:

When Stalker came out with it's DX 9 graphics (DX10 features were added later), the (Gamespot) reviewers called it outdated. When Skyrim came out 4 years later with the SAME DirectX 9-ass, DX9 Graphics reviewers said it looks amazing, despite being a console port.

They are really similar in graphics, open world shenanigans, atmosphere, the open fire places, the pixely shadows and grimey textures, lots of nature and rural life... even the rag doll mechanics are exactly the same.

Other than on the fly texture streaming (a.k.a. annoying texture pop-in), nothing changed. Texture streaming never really has properly worked in DX9, though it allowed for bigger areas.

What API is used has very little to do with graphics. APIs enable graphical features (such as easier tesselation or fog) and interface with the graphics card, but you can write DX11 features for DX9 with talented shader programmers. This is why some Xbox 360 games, even though the Xbox 360 has the equivalent of a DX8 GPU, look nearly as good as their PC counterparts--talented graphics programmers can write directly to that single GPU.

Skyrim is a better looking game. It has smoother animation, better-written and better use of shaders, and better use of normal mapping. Newer games take advantage of newer techniques and look better in general.

Just trying to bring a little bit of knowledge here, although I do think STALKER is a great looking game!

Sorry, the Stalker series is just too fucking busted. Less money won't fix the problem.

One of the most gratifying experiences I ever had in a video game was clearing out the entire train yard area infested with enemies in the early parts of the original STALKER. With nothing but my shitty pistol, no armor, limited items, and in a game where you can and do very often get killed by a single bullet. It felt so rewarding to methodically and carefully eliminate enemies and overcome seemingly insurmountable odds.

That game was sooo good.

There's always Kickstarter.

Or you can always hit up a few banks.

where do i donate?

@voltronadactylsaurusrex said:

@Hero_Swe said:

@Eurobum said:

When Stalker came out with it's DX 9 graphics (DX10 features were added later), the (Gamespot) reviewers called it outdated. When Skyrim came out 4 years later with the SAME DirectX 9-ass, DX9 Graphics reviewers said it looks amazing, despite being a console port.

They are really similar in graphics, open world shenanigans, atmosphere, the open fire places, the pixely shadows and grimey textures, lots of nature and rural life... even the rag doll mechanics are exactly the same.

Other than on the fly texture streaming (a.k.a. annoying texture pop-in), nothing changed. Texture streaming never really has properly worked in DX9, though it allowed for bigger areas.

Trust me, They are not the same in any kind of way. One runs on the gamebryo engine, the other does not. That in itself is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference.

GSC is the eastern european Bethesda. It took both companies to make the game that they were always trying to make 3 times (Morrowind, Obilvion, Skyrim, and Shadow of Chernobyl, Clear Sky, Call of Pripyat). What can be said about Bethesda games can be said about GSC's games. Almost all of their games are buggy as shit and are considered to be tons better because of the huge modding communities that both franchises have. Their games are also rated the same way as in Obilivion and Clear Sky are considered the worst while Morrowind, Skyrim, SoC, and CoP are argued over which one is better. IMO the stalker games are way better since their A-life system is miles better than Radiant AI and stalkers game systems as a whole feel alot more cohesive.

TL;DR = Bethesda and GSC are one in the same.

The inventory in both are shit as well. Dragging and dropping 20 sausages one by one is not a quality gameplay experience.

I wish Obsidian would make a game in the GSC engine/universe (they could really create some interesting factions).

I would so contribute to this if I didn't think a scam was going on. Why would THQ abandon them?

Sell it on Steam, avoid piracy, avoid publishing costs, release hard copies later.

@Zohar said:

One of the most gratifying experiences I ever had in a video game was clearing out the entire train yard area infested with enemies in the early parts of the original STALKER. With nothing but my shitty pistol, no armor, limited items, and in a game where you can and do very often get killed by a single bullet. It felt so rewarding to methodically and carefully eliminate enemies and overcome seemingly insurmountable odds.

That game was sooo good.

i completely agree. for me this sequence happened at night when a thunder storm was happening, and the only way i could see without being seen was when lightning lit the place up. amazing.

I will give all of my money to those crazy Ukrainians

All of it

Open up preorders and let people understand that they are actively helping GSC fund the development of the game and give the people who preorder something extra (features, downloadable guide, soundtrack, early beta acces etc.)

I say they either get fans to pony up money now (I would gladly give them $60) or find a way to just have fans donate (I would gladly donate $100) where each fan that donates more money than necessary, let's say $100, gets the game. This isn't the most feasible solution, but hey.

Hope they can pull through.

@Buzzkill said:

I would so contribute to this if I didn't think a scam was going on. Why would THQ abandon them?

THQ hasn't published any since the first game so...

@Kato said:

What API is used has very little to do with graphics. APIs enable graphical features (such as easier tesselation or fog) and interface with the graphics card, but you can write DX11 features for DX9 with talented shader programmers. This is why some Xbox 360 games, even though the Xbox 360 has the equivalent of a DX8 GPU, look nearly as good as their PC counterparts--talented graphics programmers can write directly to that single GPU.

Skyrim is a better looking game. It has smoother animation, better-written and better use of shaders, and better use of normal mapping. Newer games take advantage of newer techniques and look better in general.

I honestly think "graphics get better" is a cliché, that reeks of marketing spin. Certainly people get better at what they do over time, meanwhile enthusiasm, ambition, ideas and possibilities are exhausted sooner or later if they are doing the same thing. Also DX 9c came out in 2004, so I dunno why you wrote DX8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_%28graphics_chip%29

You can tell the APi generation of graphics easily by all the different graphical minutia or just by general impression and obvious things, like draw distance or chunky geometry, but especially things that look off, like armor not quite fitting right, bad shadows, unrealistic lighting. But most of all by things that haven't changed from one game to another since Half Life 2 and for 7 years now.

Now, you make a point about normal mapping, which presumably refers to faces and character models in Skyrim. I'm not saying nothing changes, but certainly not enough to appear completely different.

Hey patrick, if you do end up playing the original STALKER (and you should, it's a great game despite it's flaws), I 'd recommend the "STALKER Complete" mod pack, it fixes a lot of the issues and makes it look better and shit.

@ArbitraryWater said:

I played around 2 hours of Shadow of Chernobyl with the complete mod installed... and was kind of overwhelmed. I mean to go back someday and give it another honest try. That day is not today however.

That was my first experience as well, though minus the Complete mod. I've since gone back, with Complete mod installed, and have pushed through enough of the early content to feel comfortable rather than overwhelmed -- am enjoying it so far. Haven't played much recently due to being distracted by newer games, but I definitely plan to finish it; already bought Clear Skies and Call of Pripyat.

It's sucks that they actually didn't make Spaceballs 2: The Search for more money. Hopefully that doesn't happen here.

I would give 300 brad bucks for this

STALKER. Watch out.

Sorry. If you get the reference in the title for this article, you get my reference.

If you have money speel the beans!

WE GOT SOME HIGH QUALITY HERBS HERE

Oh please oh please let this come out!

I've been playing through the Stalker games again recently with the Complete mod, and they are so very good and crazy Eastern European.

@G0rd0nFr33m4n said:

@bustew said:

Haven't played the original either. My conscience is clean.

I played like 10 minutes of the original, and as soon as I realized that it had a durability system for guns AND a limited weight/space (aka block) inventory, I stopped playing because I didn't want to deal with it. In recent years however I have thought I would revisit the game and enable cheats to hopeful fore go such headaches.

Don't bother. It's just not for you.

STALKER is one of my all-time favorite series. But if you're the type to mod out the fundamental aspects of the game like that, you're better off not playing at all. Might as well mod out the anomalies, and radiation, and currency, etc.

The STALKER series is entertaining. I'd shell out hard cash for another go 'round.

I bought the entire series on Steam. I think I've done my part. I really hope they finish this project!

I'm with a few others,..where is the money they have already made? Stalker seemed pretty successful to me. Maybe not successful enough as a franchise, it always was almost a niche game..but actually really a breakout from that.

You've never played it Patrick? I smell another ER candidate....

I really hope this ends up coming out, I've loved the Stalker series so far and hope it continues!

@TheSquarePear said:

@voltronadactylsaurusrex said:

@Hero_Swe said:

@Eurobum said:

When Stalker came out with it's DX 9 graphics (DX10 features were added later), the (Gamespot) reviewers called it outdated. When Skyrim came out 4 years later with the SAME DirectX 9-ass, DX9 Graphics reviewers said it looks amazing, despite being a console port.

They are really similar in graphics, open world shenanigans, atmosphere, the open fire places, the pixely shadows and grimey textures, lots of nature and rural life... even the rag doll mechanics are exactly the same.

Other than on the fly texture streaming (a.k.a. annoying texture pop-in), nothing changed. Texture streaming never really has properly worked in DX9, though it allowed for bigger areas.

Trust me, They are not the same in any kind of way. One runs on the gamebryo engine, the other does not. That in itself is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference.

GSC is the eastern european Bethesda. It took both companies to make the game that they were always trying to make 3 times (Morrowind, Obilvion, Skyrim, and Shadow of Chernobyl, Clear Sky, Call of Pripyat). What can be said about Bethesda games can be said about GSC's games. Almost all of their games are buggy as shit and are considered to be tons better because of the huge modding communities that both franchises have. Their games are also rated the same way as in Obilivion and Clear Sky are considered the worst while Morrowind, Skyrim, SoC, and CoP are argued over which one is better. IMO the stalker games are way better since their A-life system is miles better than Radiant AI and stalkers game systems as a whole feel alot more cohesive.

TL;DR = Bethesda and GSC are one in the same.

The inventory in both are shit as well. Dragging and dropping 20 sausages one by one is not a quality gameplay experience.

I wish Obsidian would make a game in the GSC engine/universe (they could really create some interesting factions).

Never, you two are crazy. If you've played both you should know how un-similar they are, The STALKER games were never broken for me and I just started Skyrim and I've already seen perhaps 20 different bugs, including people sinking into the ground or hovering above it etc etc. Stalker did not have any of that.

I'm late to the PC party so I've never played STALKER either. GOG needs to get that game in their library like now.

@Hero_Swe said:

@TheSquarePear said:

@voltronadactylsaurusrex said:

@Hero_Swe said:

@Eurobum said:

When Stalker came out with it's DX 9 graphics (DX10 features were added later), the (Gamespot) reviewers called it outdated. When Skyrim came out 4 years later with the SAME DirectX 9-ass, DX9 Graphics reviewers said it looks amazing, despite being a console port.

They are really similar in graphics, open world shenanigans, atmosphere, the open fire places, the pixely shadows and grimey textures, lots of nature and rural life... even the rag doll mechanics are exactly the same.

Other than on the fly texture streaming (a.k.a. annoying texture pop-in), nothing changed. Texture streaming never really has properly worked in DX9, though it allowed for bigger areas.

Trust me, They are not the same in any kind of way. One runs on the gamebryo engine, the other does not. That in itself is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference.

GSC is the eastern european Bethesda. It took both companies to make the game that they were always trying to make 3 times (Morrowind, Obilvion, Skyrim, and Shadow of Chernobyl, Clear Sky, Call of Pripyat). What can be said about Bethesda games can be said about GSC's games. Almost all of their games are buggy as shit and are considered to be tons better because of the huge modding communities that both franchises have. Their games are also rated the same way as in Obilivion and Clear Sky are considered the worst while Morrowind, Skyrim, SoC, and CoP are argued over which one is better. IMO the stalker games are way better since their A-life system is miles better than Radiant AI and stalkers game systems as a whole feel alot more cohesive.

TL;DR = Bethesda and GSC are one in the same.

The inventory in both are shit as well. Dragging and dropping 20 sausages one by one is not a quality gameplay experience.

I wish Obsidian would make a game in the GSC engine/universe (they could really create some interesting factions).

Never, you two are crazy. If you've played both you should know how un-similar they are, The STALKER games were never broken for me and I just started Skyrim and I've already seen perhaps 20 different bugs, including people sinking into the ground or hovering above it etc etc. Stalker did not have any of that.

What? The STALKER games are notoriously buggy (especially Shadow of Chernobyl). The GSC Game World/Bethesda comparison is pretty apt.

I mean, I've been playing Skyrim on the PS3 and having a surprisingly stable gameplay experience, but I'm not going to start dismissing the fact that it's still broken as hell for most people.

@Saganomics said:

@Hero_Swe said:

@TheSquarePear said:

@voltronadactylsaurusrex said:

@Hero_Swe said:

@Eurobum said:

When Stalker came out with it's DX 9 graphics (DX10 features were added later), the (Gamespot) reviewers called it outdated. When Skyrim came out 4 years later with the SAME DirectX 9-ass, DX9 Graphics reviewers said it looks amazing, despite being a console port.

They are really similar in graphics, open world shenanigans, atmosphere, the open fire places, the pixely shadows and grimey textures, lots of nature and rural life... even the rag doll mechanics are exactly the same.

Other than on the fly texture streaming (a.k.a. annoying texture pop-in), nothing changed. Texture streaming never really has properly worked in DX9, though it allowed for bigger areas.

Trust me, They are not the same in any kind of way. One runs on the gamebryo engine, the other does not. That in itself is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference.

GSC is the eastern european Bethesda. It took both companies to make the game that they were always trying to make 3 times (Morrowind, Obilvion, Skyrim, and Shadow of Chernobyl, Clear Sky, Call of Pripyat). What can be said about Bethesda games can be said about GSC's games. Almost all of their games are buggy as shit and are considered to be tons better because of the huge modding communities that both franchises have. Their games are also rated the same way as in Obilivion and Clear Sky are considered the worst while Morrowind, Skyrim, SoC, and CoP are argued over which one is better. IMO the stalker games are way better since their A-life system is miles better than Radiant AI and stalkers game systems as a whole feel alot more cohesive.

TL;DR = Bethesda and GSC are one in the same.

The inventory in both are shit as well. Dragging and dropping 20 sausages one by one is not a quality gameplay experience.

I wish Obsidian would make a game in the GSC engine/universe (they could really create some interesting factions).

Never, you two are crazy. If you've played both you should know how un-similar they are, The STALKER games were never broken for me and I just started Skyrim and I've already seen perhaps 20 different bugs, including people sinking into the ground or hovering above it etc etc. Stalker did not have any of that.

What? The STALKER games are notoriously buggy (especially Shadow of Chernobyl). The GSC Game World/Bethesda comparison is pretty apt.

I mean, I've been playing Skyrim on the PS3 and having a surprisingly stable gameplay experience, but I'm not going to start dismissing the fact that it's still broken as hell for most people.

I will! Mwhahahaha

No but seriously, this quote chain is getting pretty big. Let's just say we agree to disagree and be happy with the choices of our games. Deal?

These games are great, terrifying and hard to get into, but great.

They should do a Personal Appeal like Jimmy Wales does.

They should do a Personal Appeal like Jimmy Wales does.

The title for this article, SO GOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD. Spaceballs!

Briefly played the first one, but I liked Clear Sky and Call of Pripyat way more

They should just do what Minecraft did. Pay now and get early access to a beta or something. Also pre-order bonuses.

i played the game after the complete mod came out for it , with all the graphic updates and bug fixes and stuff , i really loved the atmosphere of the game . Well worth a play through

More power to them. I never played the original (my computer wasn't that good at the time), but I have several friends that played it in front of me and, while not my coup of tea, it sure felt revolutionary in several ways...

@Branthog: That's basically what preorders are...

Couldn't be happier!

STALKER is a very good game when you give it enough of a chance. The first 3 games sold very well from what I've heard, so I'm sure somebody will step up to finance this new game. If Duke Nukem Forever was worth saving, then surely STALKER 2 is.