Big S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Problems?

Updated:10:48 PM CET Dec,02

CONTACT

Please e-mail us if you have news.

Gameguru Mania News - Jan,29 2006 -

Big S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Problems? - briefly
(Nosferatu) 06:07 PM CET - Jan,29 2006 - Post a comment / read (8)

Gamemag.ru conducted an investigation to clear up what's going on with S.T.A.L.K.E.R. -Shadow of Chernobyl:

Information about THQ being not satisfied with the situation that developed inside GSC had already reached us before. "They (THQ) didn't even imagine what it's like to work with GSC, - shares with us one of the former members of the company - they didn't even understand who they dealt with. STALKER always was in the state of general design. It's always been a project which was more spoken of than really done." Another source claims that at the end of November THQ made a decision to stop financing the development and to conduct a thorough revision to gain control over the development process. "We don't care what shape the game will ship in anymore, - said one of the THQ bosses to an IGN journalist, - the game must ship in 2006".

In addition to all this last week part of the original STALKER development team was moved to another project and another part was simply made redundant. "These were considerable dismissals," - told the source that still remained a member of the GSC staff, - "I heard that next week a THQ representative will arrive and he is going to stay until the project is finished."

The third source has information that a brand new engine not based on X-ray technology was in the works inside GSC, which could have been used to power renovated STALKER. Almost all of the team left the studio taking the technology created in a few months with them. GSC representatives consider this fact as theft, but former employees refer to "special circumstances". One of the members of the GSC team assumes that STALKER could be taken away along with the source code by the THQ representatives and handed to another team for work on the project. We attempted to contact GSC representatives but failed to receive an answer. THQ representatives commented on the issue drily: "No comments".

Update: Some of the developers revealed that a few months ago THQ seeked a studio ready to finish STALKER. One of the GSC programmers said that this is very unlikely: "The code is mostly not documented, they wouldn't understand a thing there."

last 10 comments:

Jelster	(09:20 PM CET - Jan,29 2006 )
Ouch. Think its time THQ grabs what it can and just walks away. Shame the developers BS their fans for so long. Ripping off a company is one thing but dragging fans around with the same crap is pretty low. If the article is entirely true.

Anonymous

(07:25 AM CET - Jan,30 2006 )

quote:
Think its time THQ grabs what it can and just walks away.

Shame the developers BS their fans for so long*. Ripping off a company is one thing but dragging fans around with the same crap is pretty low.

Speaking from someone who probably hasn't played STALKER nor knows anything about it, I can understand why you say that. I played an early beta which dated to 2004, and it had great features. It was shaping up to become something great, and for THQ to cut funding is complete bullshit.

Great games do get delayed it is true. Did you ever stop to think that developers hate to push a game out when it's not ready? Well this is a textbook example. THQ just doesn't give a damn. And for you to think it's the other way around clearly reflects you know nothing about the industry.

""We don't care what shape the game will ship in anymore, - said one of the THQ bosses to an IGN journalist, - the game must ship in 2006"."

Pathetic. Really. I wish they had the guy's name for whoever said that, because thats an amazingly low quote.

Anonymous

(08:53 AM CET - Jan,30 2006 )

quote:
It was shaping up to become something great, and for THQ to cut funding is complete bullshit. did it ever cross your mind that perhaps it wasn't shaping up, and THQ is doing this to apply pressure so GCS actually does some work? Multiplayer sucked at E3 2004, and it was a no show at E3 2005. For such a high profile game, it should be pretty obvious that something is wrong when a game isn't shown at E3, not even behind closed doors or theatre presentation.
For a game this long in development to be always in a state of design is ridiculous. THQ is protecting their investment. If you ask me it should have happened a year ago.
Don't even try to put the blame on THQ. A game company has to earn the respect to delay a project (Valve, ID, Blizzard). GSC hasn't released anything, which gives them nothing to bargin with.

Anonymous

(10:12 PM CET - Jan,30 2006 )

STALKER to me was what Half-Life 2 was back in 2003. It looked like the greatest thing ever. It had great graphics, great innovations, and a lot of hype around it.

Then it mysteriously didn't appear on store shelves. Valve fabricated a net of lies and the game never showed up. In the meantime, other games got released. In a year, new, upcoming technologies were revealed.

And when Half-Life 2 finally came, I simply didn't care anymore. The graphics looked dated. The gameplay had been beaten out by far more intuitive games. In the end, HL2 was just a 'same-old' game. Four games were the 'most anticipated' for 2003. Far Cry. Half-life 2. STALKER. Doom 3. Only two shipped. Doom 3's graphics blew me away. The gameplay wasn't superb, but it definitely was beating HL2. Far Cry blew HL2's outdoor graphics away in areas Doom 3 didn't. In addition, the AI in FarCry was far superior, smarter, and more impressive than HL2, and the... 'Linear/Open ended'-style outdoor environments really gave FPS games a new edge.

HL2 came out a year late and a dollar short. Laughable AI. A poorly-presented story (it felt like reading a book, and I skipped fifty pages in the middle). Stale gameplay. The only thing innovative was tossing some boxes around, which accounted for, from an optimistic point of view, 2% of the actual game. The parts that impressed me were the scripted sequences, which, to be honest, aren't really anything to be proud of nowadays.

STALKER is in the same boat. It looks VERY dated. Back in 2003, seeing all the rungs on the cranes and wires all in the same shot, as real, tangible objects was mind-blowing. Seeing the bump-mapping in the tile walls was total sex. Nowadays, it looks like what it is - a game that should've come out three years ago. THQ is right to push out whatever they have. STALKER has done nothing but hemmorhage money from them, and it has nothing to show for it. The development team has been lying more then Valve.

STALKER was second in line to becoming the next Duke Nukem Forever. I wouldn't pay full price for a four year old used car, would you?

yhancik

(02:36 AM CET - Jan,31 2006 )

obviously it's just some hoax

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php?id=133377

aside from that, i don't really agree with the "Stalker is now so dated we don't give a fuck anymore"

it surely makes sense if your only interest in the game is about the 3D egine or something, but hey !
Deus Ex, Morrowind or Operation Flashpoint might be "dated", they're still great, valuable gaming experiences in 2006

it's terrible, it just sounds like "Return of the Jedi is crap, special effects in The Phantom Menace are just better"
(well, bad example, but i guess it speaks to more people)

so, if what they said is true about the game, Stalker still is something unique in term of gameplay', something that i would still enjoy even with a "dated" engine
(mh and actually even if some engine like Crysis looks way better, i prefer to look at Stalker... a question of aesthetics... but i feel like almost nobody cares about that)

Jelster

(05:38 AM CET - Jan,31 2006 )

Stalker could still be a great game but the constant "We're close, oh no it'll be a bit longer" is wearing a bit thin that even a rumour/hoax/leak is believable.

I wonder why THQ hasn't sent out a press release backing up GSC?

This wouldn't be the first time someone has denied any foul play only to follow it up two weeks later by saying the project is close etc etc.

I'm a gamer, I hope GSC just get the game out and get it out in good condition. But if wishes could bring out a good game, I'm be playing Soldner instead of writing this. :)

Nosferatu	(10:29 PM CET - Jan,31 2006 )
I still have confidence in GSC, I think they'll make it a great game. Some may probably say 'pff, what's this?', but I'll appreciate their work no matter what the result may be. We'll all have the opportunity to make our final judgements this autumn.

mustangsvt

(06:53 PM CEST - Mar,26 2007 )

quote:
And when Half-Life 2 finally came, I simply didn't care anymore. The graphics looked dated. The gameplay had been beaten out by far more intuitive games. In the end, HL2 was just a 'same-old' game. Four games were the 'most anticipated' for 2003. Far Cry. Half-life 2. STALKER. Doom 3. Only two shipped. Doom 3's graphics blew me away. The gameplay wasn't superb, but it definitely was beating HL2. Far Cry blew HL2's outdoor graphics away in areas Doom 3 didn't. In addition, the AI in FarCry was far superior, smarter, and more impressive than HL2, and the... 'Linear/Open ended'-style outdoor environments really gave FPS games a new edge.
This is incorrect. FarCry came out in spring 2004, and Doom 3 came out in summer 2004. Half-Life 2 came out like what october/november 2004, only a few months later, and the game rocked in terms of graphics and gameplay. It was so good that I would agree with PC Gamer's rating of 98% or Maximum PC's rating of 11/10. You didn't like it, fair enough, but it's definetely a good game and it came out during the same year as FarCry and Doom 3.

I do agree that STALKER is a bit late. Should've come out in 2004 and 2005 and it would've been mind blowing back then. I am playing the game as we speak now and thankfully nowadays I have good enough hardware to run it at very high resolution, but it wouldve been nice to have it 2 years ago.