Chroma_Auron

It was stupid and slightly unintentionally sexist of that guy to call it that but at least it got cleared up fast.

@Shivoa: In the tetris case, what lead to the clone's defeat was the fact the company admitted to be stealing stuff when making the game. With react OS, it's goal is to 100% compatablecompatable, not an exact replica. It's like the SNES clones. they are not violating copyright.

In Zynga's case, they replicated the exact same measurements for the world and the exact same rgb values. Add that some animations are exactly the same, Top part of HUD is literally a replica (when I played it months ago), and you got a rather good case. It's like with the great Gina sister case were the first level and a half were exactly the same both in design and in graphics. Many of the enemies looked similar too. If zynga didn't do those things then it would be much harder to make a case against them unless they admitted they were stealing design idea's like in Tetrises case.

@TheDudeOfGaming: Not too mention it pretty much insults everyone who makes less then a COD game or Classics that didn't do so well Financially. It leads to the irony that he is a company that pushes out a lot of mediocre products which could lead to a video game crash just like 1983. Companies like him are a virus to this industry.

I have only had my SNES and GameCube break down on me. My SNES was old and the graphic render started to go bad while my first GameCube had an unlucky bad disk drive. Nintendo repaired it for free though.

@ck1nd: I'm not saying should shrug of bugs and let the devs ignore them. I do want devs to fix bugs when they have been reported. I don't doubt that besthesda is a good developer and can make good games.

The smoothness though is an issue with the stalker fans as you can easily leave a game of a former shell of it's name. That is what plenty of old time fans felt with Fallout 3 and were happy when Fallout New Vegas was released. I assuming that both you and the other poster were defining ruggedness as the game being brutal if you decided to wonder out somewhere too far or encounter a tough enemy that kills you near your starting point. This part seams to be more about preferences and tastes. There are people like me that like the ruggedness that challenges us. That is why there are rouge rpg's like dwarf fortress. It's fine if not your taste. I have times were I prefer a smoother experience myself.

Those kind of systems always add a lot of replay value. Bastion had a similar system with the idols that made that added double the replay value. Once with a new game + with all your equipment and score attack mode when starting over. Alpha protocol had something similar with recruit mode as you start with nothing. Combine with expert difficulty and you got a challenge along with extra dialogue.

@ck1nd: I have only played shadows of Chernobyl but I never had any serious bugs that I can remember and that is with the 1.4. Just like you didn't have any problems with skyrim or fallout 3. Though I admit, I have a strong endurance towards bugs that they generally will never deter me from playing a game. PC games in general has had a history of always having bugs. Even the classics have had plenty of bugs and roughness. What I'm trying to say is that bugs should not deter you from enjoying a game regardless of how annoying they are.

@TheDudeOfGaming: Very true. That is like saying Arma series needs to be more like COD. Look what Code Masters tried to do which blew in their face. Bethesda rpg's are more like "mainstream" rather then "hardcore" which is what Stalker is. A "Mainstream", "Casual", or "Hardcore" approach are very different paths that rarely overlap.

If this was true I would be hesitant about buying it from Bethesda. The way GSC and Bethesda make games are two very different approaches. Stalker was a the atmosphere and danger of the world. Characters and monsters would constantly be moving about. The world was alive with characters and monsters having their own personality. AI can be very tactical with them ambushing you, getting behind you, sniping, etc. You had to be just as tactical and think carefully about your actions. Monsters are not instantly going to go after you but give you a waring before attacking. Things could get expensive were you needed to take a risk and forage for equipment. With radiation blowouts, you had to worry about shelter and planing where you would rest. These are things you are not going to find from Bethesda at the same level of quality as Stalker.

Sure they make good games but their games cater towards a more mainstream audience while Stalker focuses more of a hardcore audience while welcoming others. I don't think Bethesda can make a "true Stalker game. There results with Fallout 3 were very mixed with a big divide with the old,and new fan bases. Fallout New Vegas was Truer to the Fallout series and that was done by Obsidian who 's people were involved with the original Fallout games. Yet those newcomers who liked Fallout 3 were more mixed on FO:NV. You can't please everyone but Those games were never meant to please everyone. They wanted to do their own thing.