Home
Twitter
RSS
Newsletter
Tristan Kalogeropoulos
27 Apr, 2007

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl Review

PC Review | Emerging from its own shadow.
Emerging from the vapourish mists that have enveloped the likes of Duke Nukem Forever and the Phantom console, the Ukrainian developed S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Shadow of Chernobyl brings a unique take on the First Person Shooter genre. The game's arrival as a sellable title holds a long history indeed. Originally a product showcasing the power of DirectX 9 based videocards it originally held a 2003 release date. Four years later, and a great deal of speculation of its demise under the bridge, it has hit our PC Desktops.

Set in an alternate history, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. takes place around the site of the Soviet Union’s 1986 disaster area. In the game's world, rather than simply leave a legacy of horror and a series of deformities, disabilities and scarred memories, Chernobyl became a place where bizarre things occur and bands of scavengers calling themselves stalkers roam the radioactive exclusion area, also known as the Zone, eager to pick up and make a buck, or Ruble, off of the many items left behind and newly created anomalous artifacts which they can sell either amongst themselves and/or to the outside world. You play as ‘the marked one’ who is the faceless and silent type, in the vain of Half-Life’s Gordon Freeman. Found on the back of a truck close to death, with a major case of amnesia, you wake up with naught but a two word note linking you to your past, “Kill Strelok”.

As you play through the early stages of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. the initial reaction is to be relatively unimpressed. Yes, it’s a largish world, yes, it’s a different environment to what we've seen before, but what's so stunning about it? Its veneer is one of a game made when Vista was still being called Longhorn. Not until you spend some time in the game's desolate, yet complex, world do you notice just how fleshed out and original its contents are.

The details of the oppressive Chernobyl environment are painstakingly rendered in elaborate detail.

The details of the oppressive Chernobyl environment are painstakingly rendered in elaborate detail.
Close
Many FPS’s encourage a 'storm the bridge approach' to offence, with enemies reduced simply to moving targets, relatively eager to run into the projectiles your weapon is spewing out at them. S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s minions on the other hand act in an extremely organic fashion with battle tactics that provide both challenge and a healthy dose of frustration. Acutely aware of the comprehensively constructed environments in which they’re placed, adversaries flank, coordinate group attacks, and retreat for cover – often for uncomfortably long times, tempting the trigger happy to run headlong into enemy fire only to be brutally punished by the throng of enemies acting as a finely tuned machine.

Much of the game's convoluted story is delivered via messages saved on your in game PDA. It’s an incredibly outdated story telling mechanism but allows you the freedom getting more involved in the gameplay. On the same device you can check your map and get more info on the Lore of the Zone.

The inventory system is an area where RPG elements bleed into FPS conventions. Unlike many FPS's in which your character appears to have some seriously deep pockets, or an invisible Sherpa, to carry his or her small arsenal, in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. you'll find yourself having to make careful decisions regarding what it is you'll be hauling around the wastelands of the Zone. A weight restriction means that carrying too much will either slow you down or prevent you from moving completely. This adds an interesting level of complexity to gameplay which at its best challenges but, at worst seems slightly farcical when one has to munch down a bread roll from your backpack in order to maintain the ability to propel themselves forward.

There's some interesting folk that make the exclusion zone their home.

There's some interesting folk that make the exclusion zone their home.
Close
The game’s complexity is carried over to its weapons system. From the very beginning of the game, when armed solely with a pistol which seems to have about as much strength behind it as a BB gun, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s arms react in an incredibly realistic manner. Whilst running, bullets spray erratically, slow down and aim, things become much easier. This is not a feature exclusive to the game, or even a recent idea. However it is definitely well implemented amongst the array of weapons offered be S.T.A.L.K.E.R., each of which can have their accuracy and rate of fire viewed in your inventory and allow for a relatively visceral experience when in combat.

As you progress not only does the gameplay get incredibly exciting but so to does the world. One of S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s bullet point features is its ALife engine, driving the behaviour of all those, other than yourself, inhabiting the Zone. Different factions of stalkers have banded together and each has a vested interest in annihilating the other. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. allows for you to ally with each dependant on which missions you take and complete. Members of the various groups will know when you’ve betrayed them and will shoot on site as you roam the lands. This is a neat feature however it all ends up boiling down to if they’re shooting back at you either return fire or run.

Where the AI is better implemented and adds more to the gameplay, is around the nonhuman inhabitants of the Zone. Packs of radiation ravaged dogs scavenge for food and mutants gather together to defend themselves and territory. As you wander through S.T.A.L.K.E.R. you’ll witness these groups deep in combat or retreating from one another. Allies within proximity of these groups will also come to your aid when in trouble causing the whole gameworld to feel more vibrant and alive.

Whilst the game's visuals appear slightly dated when pictured next to the lush HD worlds of titles beginning production in more recent times, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s art direction and attention to detail is incredible, almost to the point of obsessive compulsion. The Zone's faded olive greens muddle with the greys and browns of dilapidated structures and broken down vehicles in a way that conveys the wasteland-ish nature of one of Eastern Europe's nightmarish geographical ghosts. Anomalies born of nuclear fallout create visual and physical disturbances marking territories that are unreachable and obstacles that require careful traversing. The countryside, whilst nowhere near as big as that of Oblivion, still holds a vastness that allows a myriad of possible directions for the player to explore in. You can certainly see where some of the ‘extra’ development time has gone. Buildings are fully fleshed out structures with areas within that most will never even lay eyes upon. Unlike the bulk of titles in the genre there are no distinct pathways to take, few signs to guide you, and plenty of exploration to be done within the artificial fences formed by, the Geiger counter exciting, radioactive borders.

The benefit of such an incredibly complex environment is that tasks can be solved in vastly different ways, as apposed to the bottleneck style gameplay that most titles in the genre go for. From skirting your way around a building to find one of the many ways in or choosing whether to evade a group of soldiers or engage them in a heated fire fight, the solutions to the barriers that the game places in way are up to each individual. The one downside of having such a vast landscape to explore is the time it takes traipsing toward that pathway into the next area without being offered an alternative form of transport to your feet and legs. This is the least of S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s flaws though.

Light and dark, along with a juxtaposition between cramped spaces and open fields, is put to great use in creating tension and atmosphere.

Light and dark, along with a juxtaposition between cramped spaces and open fields, is put to great use in creating tension and atmosphere.
Close
These issues extend beyond the broken verbal, and at times written, English. There are periods when trigger points seem to require an oiling to remove the creaks in the coding. There are more strange things to see than simply the radiation affected mutants and ghostly apparitions. NPC's occasionally exhibit odd behaviours which reach beyond simple erratic eccentricity, such as simply stopping whilst being escorted, causing the need to reload the game or a simple execution to continue to the next objective with a failure chalked up on your record. There was one occasion where upon the game loading us into the next area of the gameworld we found ourselves falling from the sky and losing half our health instead of appearing on the road where we had entered - presumably we failed to notice the large step. Somehow though, the extensive list of errata does not cause a hatred of the game but rather S.T.A.L.K.E.R. manages to rise above it problems, manipulating those around it to simply ignore or overlook its quirks born of what appears to be a game salvaged from deep within the exclusion zone of vapourware.

Thankfully the hype surrounding S.T.A.L.K.E.R. in its early life had some substance to it. And whilst the game has some annoying quirks, and its complexity will most likely not appeal to everyone, for the most part GSC's radioactive wasteland dishes up some of the more compelling and exciting gameplay available today, even though we were supposed to see it years ago.
The Score
It's amazing that a slightly buggy game that was originally slated for a 2003 release can provide such fantastic gaming. It's almost scary to think just how influential S.T.A.L.K.E.R. could have been, had it been released 3-4 years ago with completely polished code. 8
Looking to buy this game right now? PALGN recommends www.Play-Asia.com.

Related S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl Content

2004 build of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. released
03 Mar, 2009 With some new levels and some old bugs.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Online?
20 Dec, 2007 MMOG a strong possibility.
New S.T.A.L.K.E.R. titles coming
17 May, 2007 They've certainly had plenty of time to work on them.
25 Comments
2 years ago
If it wasn't for the buggy PDA and some mission bugs I'd be playing this game heaps more, just a shame it wasn't as polished as it should have been.

Also it is one of those games where there are a few things that irk me and am neither bothered about finishing the game or playing it again for some time until a decent patch comes out for the thing.
Also I greatly dislike the shift+cntrl for the real low crouch, i mean c'mon put the low crouch on one key, don't make me mash the keyboard.*sigh* it's little things like that that make me not bother with the game anymore.
2 years ago
Took me 10 hours to finish the game the first time, doing one of the sucky endings. The second time it took me less time for obvious reasons, but on the hardest difficulty, and I finished all the side quests. I didn't count the fetch quests as side quests, those were just a waste of time. Why would I spend an hour searching for an artifact for a quest in order to get money, when money serves little purpose in the game? I came across all the items and weapons I needed to while doing the main quest.

Also this article kind of spoiled the story in the first paragraph. You only find out about what happens to the Zone if you complete 2 out of the 6 or 7 endings. The other endings will cut short the story and you don't actually find out who you are (amnesia) or what the Zone is. I'm rambling. In other words, the article explains what the Zone is, and that was a spoiler. Naughty.

It's as buggy as ****. The quest triggers are an abomination. Some missions will trigger one of the NPC's whom you are trying to save, to be stuck inside a wall Hans Solo style. Other times you might fail a mission but are able to continue the main mission like nothing happened. You could kill the person you are trying to escort in order to get the piece of information off their corpse which would aid you in your quest. There are no real penalties other than putting a frown on your face.

Also the 'Stalker Rating' system in your PDA is wack. When you start the game you're ranked 500 or 600 out of all the Stalkers, right at the bottom. You think "wow it will take me forever to beat everyone, I wonder if I will come across the person leading and will have to kill him." Nope. By the end of the game (10 hours) you would have killed enough enemies and be ranked No. 1 by far, and not having to battle it out or anything.

The PDA updates are stupid. After triggering a cut-scene or picking up a quest item, you have to open your PDA in order to read what your character has written in his own notes. For example the cut-scene is about a strange dream. None of it makes sense. Check your PDA and it says "I had a strange dream and it means this..." Totally stupid. Also you can't keep tabs on what information is unread or read.

There are only a handful of monsters. You will be **** your pants in the first underground area where there is what I like to call 'atmospheric scariness'. You're like 'oh **** I bet there's a monster here' but there are hardly any moments like this, as opposed to F.E.A.R or Doom 3. The sound in these areas is pretty cool though. Just a lack of **** monsters.

The accuracy of the weapons is ridiculous. You will come across millions of ammo for **** weapons with no range and no damage factor. Yet when you finally get a good gun, you will be flat strap getting ammo. There are hardly any 'ammo caches' laying around to collect, and the people who sell weaps/ammo don't carry the good ****. Basically you have to kill an enemy and hope he had the ammo you want. Farout.

I could go on forever.
2 years ago
Mitchacho wrote
Also this article kind of spoiled the story in the first paragraph. You only find out about what happens to the Zone if you complete 2 out of the 6 or 7 endings. The other endings will cut short the story and you don't actually find out who you are (amnesia) or what the Zone is. I'm rambling. In other words, the article explains what the Zone is, and that was a spoiler. Naughty.
I wouldn't say it said what the zone is. I may have given people an insight into what is going on in the zone but there is far more to be learnt as you play through. You learn the things that I mentioned quite early on (nowehere near the end). I wouldn't call it a spoiler. I have however edited the paragraph leaving things a little more ambiguous.

I think that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is a love it or hate it kind of game. I just happened to really enjoy it.
2 years ago
Mitchacho wrote
Also this article kind of spoiled the story in the first paragraph. You only find out about what happens to the Zone if you complete 2 out of the 6 or 7 endings. The other endings will cut short the story and you don't actually find out who you are (amnesia) or what the Zone is. I'm rambling. In other words, the article explains what the Zone is, and that was a spoiler. Naughty.
eh?

there's nothing in that first paragraph that isn't in the user guide.
hell, there's a whole timeline written there that goes through how the Chernobyl Power Plant went critical in 1986, then went critical again in 2006, so if that's not a clue as to what the deal is, i don't know what is.

the whole "alternate universe" thing is quite obvious too, since the station didn't suffer a second meltdown 20 years later.
2 years ago
Key word: Consciousness. It doesn't allude to anything though, you're right, there's not really spoilererisms

I was so bitterly disappointed with all the endings: the 'early/bad' ones and the 'true' ones. It just ended so sharply in a cut-scene and you can't even continue. The answers to my questions weren't freaking answered.
2 years ago
Games are not movies, yet movies will get re-reviewed in the movie media if a directors-cut comes out. It will also be reviewed as a movie and again when released on DVD and again when shown on the TV. This game has had three patches and mods that have fixed everything and made the game better. But this review will always represent this game. Where are the re-looks, the updates, the editors comments? All gaming sites and magazines should have a '3 month re-look' where they look at the games that have had patches and re-look at their original review, making changes where necessary. Too many 7.0/8.0 games have been fixed and turned into 9.0 games, but unless you dig deep, the world will never know. How about PALGN starting a trend and re-looking at games like KOTOR and Boiling Point and STALKER and what they are like AFTER being patched?!
2 years ago
If a deveoper is confident with releasing a game in its current state, then the review should reflect that. Patches are not rereleases, and at most fix problems that should not have been there if the game had been properly tested.
2 years ago
... And yet we complain about shallow 10 hour rail shooters with less decision making, and guess what? They are the easiest to program - so I wonder why 10 hour rail shooters get the highest scores? Maybe because they can put more effort into the graphics as the programming is easier and maybe because it's easier to program they get released with less bugs. Hence the exact games that bore PC gamers and are driving PC sales down are the one's the media are giving the highest scores to!

Secondly, with your attitude where's the incentive for developers/publishers to spend money on patches and improvements based on customer feedback? They could spend millions but where does it get them? You aren't going to change the review score or do anything that takes account of this.

Thirdly, in the same way 10 hour rail shooters get higher scores and are easier to make, open ended games more free-form games with 20 time the content, like the Elder Scrolls series, Boiling Point KOTOR and yes, STALKER more often than not get marked down because of quite small bugs and hugely marked down for larger bugs. But even there, it is uneven. A product like Oblivion is not seen as buggy because the media have kept quite on it, and yet we have dozens of mod fixes and an unofficial patch with over 1,000 fixes, alongside the two patches. On the other hand, we have Boiling Point that even to this day is used as a stick to beat anything Deep Shadows is looking to release as every article starts out with how terrible Boiling Point IS, when, after the 2.0 patch, it is not. And why, 2 years from now, should any game be mentioned as 'an average 70% game' based on the original review, when quite patently it has been changed beyond all recognition, either by official or user patches/improvements. Vampire: Bloodlines is a good case in point there (and yes, another more open free-form RPG, as opposed to those 10 hour shooters!)

Surely, given the state of PC gaming, it's time the media came into the real world. All open-ended free-form games get released with bugs, especially from smaller publishers because it is not possible to have the number of playtesters you would need to find all the bugs in a complicated large world free-form game. To some extent, it's the nature of the genre that gamers themselves will always be testers to some degree for games like this.

All I know is if we just end up with 10 hour rail shooters on PC, there won't be a PC market. If on the other hand we are expecting open-ended, free-form, multi NPC RPG's and FPS/RPG's like STALKER to be released totally bug free in order to give a 90%+ review, we are never going to get 90%+ reviews for these type of games except on very rare occasions where an enlightened review 'gets it'. This will put publishers off developing these games and concentrate more on those shooters (which is already happening) which are cheaper and easier to produce.

The one genre that differentiates itself from console gaming, is the one genre being beaten to the ground by the gaming media with it's unrealistic attitudes to it. You have a choice. You either start marking 10 hour shooters down for not being value for money, or you take into account with higher scores for the fact that games like STALKER and KOTOR and others are pretty much 1/3 the cost because they have at least 3 times the gameplay!

While Bioshock deserves it's 90% scores, STALKER no longer deserves it's 70/80% scores. One genre being fairly treated another genre not.

We already lost so many genres to the mainstream market, mostly because reviewers, the media and the industry don't 'understand' them. Is this another genre that going to squeezed out until we only have rail shooters on PC. If that's the case, then I won't be a PC gamer any more. And based on PC game sales the last couple years, it would seem many others have already made that decision.
2 years ago
I do see your point (and agree to an extend) but how do you honestly expect media publications to keep up with patches and upgrades to a game?

A title like Killzone Liberation received an infrastructure mode 6 months after release, TDU is still seeing additional car packs and new GH songs are coming out. Reviews reflect the quality of the boxed title people will buy off the shelf, the rest should be a bonus. If you're extremely keen on a game read up on the patches but it's a seemingly idealistic suggestion that reviews could be dynamically changed every week.
2 years ago
Luke wrote
How do you honestly expect media publications to keep up with patches and upgrades to a game?

A title like Killzone Liberation received an infrastructure mode 6 months after release, TDU is still seeing additional car packs and new GH songs are coming out. Reviews reflect the quality of the boxed title people will buy off the shelf, the rest should be a bonus. If you're extremely keen on a game read up on the patches but it's a seemingly idealistic suggestion that reviews could be dynamically changed every week.
I agree, I don't read old reviews anyway
2 years ago
I can see your point UK_John, but personally, I finished the game and never played it again. I just stumbled upon a download for their latest of the several patches that have been made, and I couldn't be arsed getting it to see what they fixed up. They can't win me over with some half-arsed patches. Like Cer said, it's the developers problem for releasing a game that needed lots of little fixes.

However if I hadn't played it already, and I was looking at reviews, I would be turned off by everyone saying it's buggy or whatever, even though the various patches have fixed whatever the problems are. A 'revisit' review would be good in Utopia, but really, who gives a ****? Way too much effort for nothing.

Let's just all agree to laugh at developers for releasing stuff too early.
2 years ago
Worst of all with these patches, they remove compatibility with previous saves.

Not cool.
2 years ago
Fine, well if you are going to take a genre that is always likely to have bugs, by the very nature of the beast and kill it off because of it, you are unlikely to see this genre for much longer. You cannot have a level playing field between an easy, cheap to program with an engine, allowing for a larger percentage of the development budget on the graphics, rail shooter and a deep open-world multiple NPC and AI routines that has 5 times the gameplay, 10 times the world size and 20 times the content! That is unrealistic and you are basically telling the genre to disappear and for us only to have the rail shooters because they will be the only genre to be bug free on release due to there ease of development!

As for a lot of work, all you need to do is see if the bugs you downscored the game originally for were fixed. A game could be downscored too, if the patch didn't. Certainly something needs to be done. Or this genre will go the way of the adventure genre.

I despair that with these attitudes we are only going to end up with the totally scripted FPS genre at this rate! As there seems to be no differentiation between a 10 hour on the rails shooter and a 50km open-ended free form game. The former can be written in 12 months, the latter take three years or more. And what do developers/publishers get for that? Any respect at all? No, they are treated exactly the same as those boring, shallow, on the rail shooters that all look alike because they all sue the same engine!

Is it any wonder PC gaming is struggling, with, on a yearly basis, fewer PC titles released, a lower quality for those that are released and sales that are half that of 5 years ago!
2 years ago
What I don't quite understand is why Oblivion got such high scores given it's bugs (aren't there some game breaking bugs in Oblivion that effectively prevent you from finishing?) when other titles cop huge amounts of flak for theirs.
2 years ago
Sin Ogaris wrote
What I don't quite understand is why Oblivion got such high scores given it's bugs (aren't there some game breaking bugs in Oblivion that effectively prevent you from finishing?) when other titles cop huge amounts of flak for theirs.
Because the large publishers are realizing it's cheaper in the long run from a cost and PR basis to release an editor and let modders fix the bugs, meaning their not bugs any more, than it is to have the media talking about a 'buggy game'! It also helps to be seen as a 'major' publisher from the media's point of view. Because an Oblivion as bugged as a Boiling Point would not get the diatribe that Deep Shadows got and still get to this day! Big publishers get breaks, they get allowances. They are big advertisers and they fly reporters to exotic location to preview their games, etc. Small publishers cannot do this. I am sure if you asked the media why they were biased toward game publishers they would point out how could they be biased 'didn't you see what we said about Boiling Point?!'
2 years ago
you have some seriously wack ideas of how the review scene works. sure, a film can be re-reviewed for a re-release, but then a film only takes 2 maybe 3 hours of your time, a game with a runtime of 10 or more hours is simply prohibitive.

how are reviewers supposed to review fixed games when there are so many broken ones being released each week?

simple solution is to stop releasing broken games. don't employ a "eh, we can fix it later with a patch" mentality. sure, some games have issues after release as people use the game in manners the developers didn't intend. i don't know how you can claim that the media kept quiet about Oblivion's bugs though, i remember all sorts of articles and comments regarding several major bugs in the game.

i agree that it can be rough on smaller developers who might share a bug with a larger firm's game, but one might be reviewed glowingly, while the other is gamebreaking and scored appropriately. unfortunately, some review places take cash for overlooking such trivialities as being able to complete the game.

but i'd like to know why you continually choose Boiling Point. it might've been scored low because it was broken, or it might've been because it genuinely sucked. to me, it felt like GTA set in a ghost town. it required massive computer power with very little to show for it, and had some of the worst AI i've come across since Doom 3. sure, it was ambitious, and had everything worked properly, it could've been good, but several key gameplay elements (note: NOT bugs, but actual elements of how you were supposed to play) were lacking and the game felt like a budget title.
and ambitious or not, reviews are supposed to reflect what the reviewer feels about the final product, not the ambition. i could release a dossier on how my game will be visible in 3D without using glasses, use the sound card to manufacture fragrances for more immersion, unique NPCs so you'll never see the same "actor" twice and feature a pet shark with freaking lasers on it's head, but then if i deliver a remake of Pong using shark shaped paddles, then my ambition will not save it in the reviews.

did you, perhaps, work on Boiling Point? it'd certainly explain the fascination with the title. personally, i returned it.
2 years ago
uk_john wrote
Fine, well if you are going to take a genre that is always likely to have bugs, by the very nature of the beast and kill it off because of it, you are unlikely to see this genre for much longer.
Didn't KOTOR and STALKER sell quite well? I fail to see how reviews that say "good but needs more polish" are killing off a genre.

uk_john wrote
Is it any wonder PC gaming is struggling, with, on a yearly basis, fewer PC titles released, a lower quality for those that are released and sales that are half that of 5 years ago!
Oh, phew, I'm glad you cleared that up for me. Here I was thinking people got bored with PC gaming because every second title released was either an FPS or an RTS for the longest time, and the price to keep up with hardware to play the latest games as intended and without slowdowns is substantially more than shelling out a few hundred dollars for consoles, and you don't need a PC to play online anymore thanks to services like Xbox live, and...
2 years ago
I do not work for Deep Shadows, the developers of Boiling Point, but my point with that title is we still get comments made every time a new Deep Shadows game is editorialised about the 'flying jaguar' or 'exploding police station', as in 'let's hope this new title doesn't...' Can you imaging that sort of reporting happening with every Bethesda release becasue of the totally buggy Daggerfall or Morrowind?

Also everytime the Boiling Point bugs are mentioned they are the 1.0 buga and were fixed in the 2.0 patch, any reporter should have an awareness of what bugs a patch fixed on some level.

I didn't start playing Boiling Point until after the 2.0 patch came out, and like many gamers I did not have the problem's mentioned above. I sometimes wonder if the quotes thrown about are by people that gave the 1.0 version 15 minutes and gave up and have never played the game with the 2.0 patch applied.

I have been playing PC games for 20 years, so a) I know what I like, and b) I know when a game is good or not. Boiling Point is a fascinating fun game that I have put over 50 hours into, It is rough round the edges like STALKER, but like STALKER, it is eminently playable! The open world games come along so seldomly, that as I say, they are not given as much respect as they deserve.

KOTOR sold well because it was Star Wars. But it didn't sell as well a other hit games like Far Cry and, etc. STALKER has had a lot of editorial coverage, but hasn't sold that many units. This has led to Clear Sky being promoted already, a sure sign the publisher thinks STALKER sales are dropping off.
2 years ago
The 2.0 patch was released too far after the initial release of Boiling Point to allow it to become a factor. See Company of Heroes for an example. GameSpot were initially harder on it in the review because of poor performance, but in a reasonable time frame, Relic issued a patch for SLI systems which fixed the GameSpot reviewer's issues.

When a publisher sends a game to retail, that is what they consider their final product. If the game is buggy, then it should be mentioned in a review, because part of a good game is thorough QA testing.
2 years ago
i can't say i've seen anywhere near this much coverage on Boiling Point since it was released - to me at least, it completely fell off the map, so the reasoning behind your continued promoting of it seems quite strange.

the issue still stands though - games require such an investment of time that re-reviewing each time a patch is released simply isn't possible. so, like it or not, buggy games are what are reviewed. if anything, it should motivate the developers to improve their quality control methods before they release their next title.

you mention KOTOR - that received quite a lot of accolades and deservedly so. but KOTOR2 suffered quite a bit of bad press for being buggy and rushed, and again, quite rightly so. sure, a third party team released a patch that essentially finished the game, unlocking several quests that, for one reason or another, were unavailable in the original release, and consequently improves the narrative.

should this be reviewed?
imo, no. because it wasn't the game released. and that is the purpose of gaming media - reviewing titles as they are released, not some idealised version.
2 years ago
Good debate fellas. Can I say that both sides are correct by degree's?

In truth, a product is not finished until the developer stops contributing to it in a useful & timely fashion. I personally take note & appreciate developers committing resources to improve a game that may have past its peak sales period.

Commitment to customer satisfaction can only be encouraged & applauded. The reward is usually in the form of customer loyalty and is reflected in public discussion forums such as PALGN. I take more note of recommendations made here than from journalist reviews offered in print & electronic publications.

Journalists on the other hand have no choice but to review the first release and judge the quality of the product as it stands at that point in time. I can't see them taking responsibility of giving a running commentary each time a patch or mod becomes available and as others have pointed out, users who purchased & used the product on release have done so in good faith and on the understanding that it is ready for consumption. The editorials are therefore written with the likely experience of those users in mind.
2 years ago
Cookie wrote
Good debate fellas. Can I say that both sides are correct by degree's?

In truth, a product is not finished until the developer stops contributing to it in a useful & timely fashion. I personally take note & appreciate developers committing resources to improve a game that may have past its peak sales period.

Commitment to customer satisfaction can only be encouraged & applauded. The reward is usually in the form of customer loyalty and is reflected in public discussion forums such as PALGN. I take more note of recommendations made here than from journalist reviews offered in print & electronic publications.

Journalists on the other hand have no choice but to review the first release and judge the quality of the product as it stands at that point in time. I can't see them taking responsibility of giving a running commentary each time a patch or mod becomes available and as others have pointed out, users who purchased & used the product on release have done so in good faith and on the understanding that it is ready for consumption. The editorials are therefore written with the experience of those users in mind.
I agree with this. Games like Unreal Tournament have garnered a huge following due to Epics continuing loyalty to each release they do, and the content they release is all free. The extra content not only makes the whole game complete, but it adds as a bonus to purchasing customers and gives us more incentive to support that said company, in this case Epic.

In terms of reviewers, they can't simply hold off and wait for a patch to be released so they can review the 'complete' game. They also have time restrictions too, as developers do also. Time is not infinite, so you make the most of it and get the product out there as best you can. If reviewers bash it for its bugs, then it is unfortunate, but that's how it works.

For me I've learnt to download extra content for my PC games, as that's always been the case with them. I almost never listen to reviews for PC games as generally the game is always improved in some form or another. When it comes to console games, I expect a complete product from the get-go, as they usually shouldn't have patches, however this is now changing with the next-gen consoles.

And as for Stalker, I thought it was a great game. It was a bit buggy, but for what it gave out of the box, it was quality and highly enjoyable.
2 years ago
While I agree that any developer that continues supporting their game after its sales have slowed down to negligible numbers is a great thing, I don't think its fair to lay the onus of keeping up to date with game patches on the reviewers. Their job is to evaluate a game generally while it is new and still being sold at full RRP. Part of the criteria a game is judged on is its perceived value; that is, whether or not it delivers a gameplay experience that is worth the price tag attached to it.

Now, if a game is released with enough noticable and/or game-breaking bugs in it to warrant attention then this should be reflected in the review. Reviews should deal with the game experience in whatever state it is right out of the box and how purchasers will get it, not some possible state it might be one day after a patch or two.

If a game is patched in a way that fixes any major bugs that have plagued users, and/or improves the gameplay enough that prior criticisms aren't quite accurate anymore, then it should be up to the devs (or the publisher) to request a re-review (or addendum). Or even easier they could just release a statement to the gaming media about the patch and how much better it makes their game, that way it can just be reported as gaming news.

A reviewer isn't responsible for the state of the game, just giving an honest evaluation and opinion of the games they're given.
2 years ago
Karai Pantsu wrote
A reviewer isn't responsible for the state of the game, just giving an honest evaluation and opinion of the games they're given.
agreed. and that is essentially my argument.

it is true that with the advent of the internet, developers can afford to be lazy with what they release, but imo it's still in the best interest of the company to make it as complete as possible. sure there has to be some point where the developers just say "ok - we've done all we can do" and release it, otherwise we end up with Duke Nukem Forever, which continually evolves and shifts platforms and engines and it's never released.

but reviewers aren't able to predict what will happen with the games.
by the logic of waiting for patches, games like KOTOR2 and Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines would never be reviewed as the patches that fixed many of the issues with the respective games were never officially released. sure, both got third-party patches, but this isn't up to the reviewer to pursue. and then, if you want to go back and review patched games, which KOTOR2/VTMB patch do you use?
the last official one, or the last third party one?
Add Comment
Like this review?
Share it with this tiny url: http://palg.nu/22F

N4G : News for Gamers         Twitter This!

Digg!     Stumble This!

| More
  Pre-order or buy:
    PALGN recommends: www.Play-Asia.com

Australian Release Date:
  Out Now
European Release Date:
  Out Now
Publisher:
  THQ
Developer:
  GSC Gameworld
Players:
  1-?

Read more...
Currently Popular on PALGN
Bioshock 2 Review
Welcome back to Rapture...
Win 1 of 10 Bioshock 2 packs
Includes free stuffs!
PALGN Weekly Releases - 08/02/10
Christmas in February?
Nier Preview
Nierly as dark and twisted as Drakengard.