S.T.A.L.K.E.R. S.C.R.E.E.N.S.

[bapenguin]

Satan is in a fierce snowball fight, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. recently went gold (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26264). With that comes 20 new screenshots from THQ of the game.

http://www.evilavatar.com/images/previews/stalker/thumb.39318_stalkershadowof.jpg (http://www.evilavatar.com/images/previews/image.php?image=www.evilavatar.com/images/previews/stalker/39318_stalkershadowof.jpg)

The game just doesn't seem to have the punch it used to.

[Serapth]

The jaggies, they hurt my eyes!!!


Sad a game that went from being a powerhouse graphically, to a washed out ugly mess. Anyone old enough to remember Origins Strike Commander? Same deal, the game was in development so long that by the time it shipped, it looked horrid.

[AntB]

I don't know, in the day time the game doesn't do many wonders, doesn't look bad.. but the night time shots are quite effective, as noted here: http://www.evilavatar.com/images/previews/stalker/1.jpg

[Dr.Finger]

When was this game first shown to the public? 2000?

[Citizen Philip]

Videogames are not like mail: better late then never.

I'm looking at you Duke.

[SPBTooL]

Satan is in a fierce snowball fight, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. recently went gold (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26264).Then from the great void came an Echoing... "Duke Nukem Forever".... Just like that, the snow was gone.

[dark_inchworm]

As long as the game's fun...

[menage]

I think it looks alright. It may be a bit crude but at least it has a style of it's own.

My main problem is I don't think it's fun.

[Ravana]

Welcome. Welcome to City 17.

[SeriousStu]

I'm quite the opposite to everyone else it seems - I like the look of that daytime shot and I thought that nighttime shot (the stars in the sky in particular) didn't look so hot.

[mulligan]

The jaggies, they hurt my eyes!!!


Sad a game that went from being a powerhouse graphically, to a washed out ugly mess. Anyone old enough to remember Origins Strike Commander? Same deal, the game was in development so long that by the time it shipped, it looked horrid.


What the fuck are you talking about? it looks great! what are you waiting for? a bumpmapping mess + hdr + glowing lights + burly marines? I think this looks better than your holy gears, looks miles away from "Crackdown", just because of a few jaggies, (which will be determined by your level of AA) it doesn't mean that the art direction and sense of atmosphere this game has is lost, seriously, you are a bunch of spoiled morons, but hey, if this was to be on the Holy 360, it would look great huh? :rolleyes: ...

[MrWonderstuff]

I'm playing the multiplayer beta and its bloody awesome.

Oh and a hot off the press hands-on at the Shack.

LInky (http://www.shacknews.com/extras/2007/030207_stalkersp_preview_1.x)

[Serapth]

What the fuck are you talking about? it looks great! what are you waiting for? a bumpmapping mess + hdr + glowing lights + burly marines? I think this looks better than your holy gears, looks miles away from "Crackdown", just because of a few jaggies, (which will be determined by your level of AA) it doesn't mean that the art direction and sense of atmosphere this game has is lost, seriously, you are a bunch of spoiled morons, but hey, if this was to be on the Holy 360, it would look great huh? :rolleyes: ...


Look at any sharp edges... the jaggies are what you would expect from a game 4 years ago. On top of that, all of the textures look extremely washed out. Chances are, the game is using way to small of a color palette because art assets targets the hardware from 4 or 5 years ago.

Even worse, Jaggies in a screenshot are one thing, but if you have jaggies along defining edges of your art ( like the corner of a building ) it will look even worse in motion. You will get pixel swim that will go a long way toward killing any suspension of disbelief.

That is what im talking about.

EDIT: Also, why are you turning this towards an MS fanboy slant???

[mulligan]

Look at any sharp edges... the jaggies are what you would expect from a game 4 years ago. On top of that, all of the textures look extremely washed out. Chances are, the game is using way to small of a color palette because art assets targets the hardware from 4 or 5 years ago.

That is what im talking about.

Color palette? what is this ? 1984? as far as I know those are 32 bit textures, the "color palette" is only limited by what the artist wants to do, and the atmosphere dictates, and what the mood requires, what do you want? there is a fairly variety of colors which has NOTHING to do with hardware at this point, and REMEMBER THAT unlike a console YOU CAN CHANGE THE RESOLUTION AND OR LEVEL OF AA.

[Zaro]

There's no jaggies at all, what are you talking about.
The game don't use a small palette to targets old hardware,
it's just an art direction.

[MrWonderstuff]

Clearly you have never been to Ukraine ;-). Check out the photographs the team took of Chenobyl and the surrounding area, not much colour variation there.

[Serapth]

Color palette? what is this ? 1984? as far as I know those are 32 bit textures, the "color palette" is only limited by what the artist wants to do, and the atmosphere dictates, and what the mood requires, what do you want? there is a fairly variety of colors which has NOTHING to do with hardware at this point, and REMEMBER THAT unlike a console YOU CAN CHANGE THE RESOLUTION AND OR LEVEL OF AA.

That only works to a certain degree. Not to mention AA isnt exactly free. As to color palette, yes, that is exactly what im saying. Those do not look like 32 bit textures, not even close. They are either heavily compressed or using a fixed color set. Keep in mind, that was still the norm when this game was started.

[Evil_SPanKY]

This game looks great IMO, but I am not a graphics whore. If its fun, its fun, period! Hell, I recently finished playing through System Shock 2 a few weeks ago, and those are what, 10 year old graphics? Didn't even really bother me all that much (but the faces did look atrocious though). Although, someone from here did point me to a higher res graphics mod for it, but I was probably like 75% through it before I loaded this mod.

Anyhoo.....just pre-ordered mine from Gogamer.com for $34.95. Also picked up C&C 3 as well as GRAW 2 from them. Gonna be a fun gaming month for me I thinks!

[UnderHero5]

Look at any sharp edges... the jaggies are what you would expect from a game 4 years ago. On top of that, all of the textures look extremely washed out. Chances are, the game is using way to small of a color palette because art assets targets the hardware from 4 or 5 years ago.

Even worse, Jaggies in a screenshot are one thing, but if you have jaggies along defining edges of your art ( like the corner of a building ) it will look even worse in motion. You will get pixel swim that will go a long way toward killing any suspension of disbelief.
That is what im talking about.
You realize that jaggies will go away if you turn on a certain level of Anti Aliasing in game, right? It has nothing to go with the games graphics. EVERY game on PC has jaggies unless you turn on AA or run it at a very high resolution. It has NOTHING to do with the game itself.

As for "Chances are, the game is using way to small of a color palette because art assets targets the hardware from 4 or 5 years ago."... that doesn't even make sense. Games from 4 years ago used 32bit color. Games still use 32bit color.
The color palette chosen has nothing to do with technical limitations and everything to do with art direction. You may not like the colors... fine, but it's not because it's using "old technology".
Maybe you should take a look at some games from 4-5 years ago again. They couldn't hope to come close to the graphics of Stalker, even if Stalker isn't the most graphically excellent game out there.

By the way... Gears of War is overwhelmingly brown/grey during much of the game... does that mean it's "art assets target the hardware from 4 or 5 years ago"?

You'd have to be a fucking idiot if you think they worked on Stalker for 6 years and are still using the original art assets from when they began. Shit gets updated when a game is in development for that long. Why do you think it takes that long in the first place?

[mulligan]

That only works to a certain degree. Not to mention AA isnt exactly free. As to color palette, yes, that is exactly what im saying. Those do not look like 32 bit textures, not even close. They are either heavily compressed or using a fixed color set. Keep in mind, that was still the norm when this game was started.


Serapth, as I said before AA for current hardware (6800 GT and onwards) while not penalty free is pretty cheap, and those are not 16 bit textures because, they have been obsolete since 1999 (along with 16 bit depth), also keep in mind this game uses pixel shaders, which would look horrible since the lost of precision would be unbearable, so its more of an artistic argument, rather than catering on older hardware.

[smashism]

remember when this game used to look fun?

[Serapth]

Obviously a difference in opinion on this one. Texture resolutions over the last 4 -6 years have been stagering though guys. Your talking a time where texture memory was limited to the 16 - 32 meg range, as opposed to 256-512 meg video cards of this day. People saved memory however they could, be it through a reduced palette, lower texture resolutions ( 256x256 being big in the day ) or compression, which will effect the available colours.

[claws]

It looks like a slightly prettier Devastation to me, if anybody remembers that far back. I can't understand what all the fuss is about the beta either... it's 'OK', I guess, but feels clumsy and dated.

[UnderHero5]

Obviously a difference in opinion on this one. Texture resolutions over the last 4 -6 years have been stagering though guys. Your talking a time where texture memory was limited to the 16 - 32 meg range, as opposed to 256-512 meg video cards of this day. People saved memory however they could, be it through a reduced palette, lower texture resolutions ( 256x256 being big in the day ) or compression, which will effect the available colours.
Bah, never mind. Now you're just grasping at straws. The game obviously isn't using textures that were made for 16-32mb cards... Think whatever you'd like. It's not worth arguing over an idea as stupid as what you're proposing.

I personally think the game looks fine. It's at about the graphical level of F.E.A.R, imo, and I think F.E.A.R. still looks excellent (and is only a year and a half old or so).

[AntB]

Obviously a difference in opinion on this one. Texture resolutions over the last 4 -6 years have been stagering though guys. Your talking a time where texture memory was limited to the 16 - 32 meg range, as opposed to 256-512 meg video cards of this day. People saved memory however they could, be it through a reduced palette, lower texture resolutions ( 256x256 being big in the day ) or compression, which will effect the available colours.

While you might be pissed that this game doesn't top out your top of the line computer, I am happy. I am happy because this game will run wonderfully on my Low-end(by today's standards) computer. Not every game that comes out needs to be a graphical powerhouse. The game represents wonderfully what Chernobyl looks like, albeit in a bit more dark manner. I am also happy that a game is set in my homeland, although not a wonderful part of it, but i'll take what I can get.

[claws]

Obviously a difference in opinion on this one. Texture resolutions over the last 4 -6 years have been stagering though guys. Your talking a time where texture memory was limited to the 16 - 32 meg range, as opposed to 256-512 meg video cards of this day.
The people disagreeing with you have been mostly so damn rude that I wish you were right, but I think it's likely that these are full 32 bit textures. This was announced in 2001 or so, and even if you push development back to 2000 you're still really using 32-bit by that time (this is well after the release of Quake 3, for example, which I think had 32-bit as an option). I'd guess the palette is intentionally muted, although for me it's almost washed out.

[mulligan]

Obviously a difference in opinion on this one. Texture resolutions over the last 4 -6 years have been stagering though guys. Your talking a time where texture memory was limited to the 16 - 32 meg range, as opposed to 256-512 meg video cards of this day. People saved memory however they could, be it through a reduced palette, lower texture resolutions ( 256x256 being big in the day ) or compression, which will effect the available colours.


Nope, you are wrong, when this game was showcased ( I remember being a Geforce 5900 Ultra showcase, which came with 256 MB standard) it was an example on how the card was capable of high detail textures, now we're at a point where the limiting factor is more of a shader issue than texture issue, modern games are taxed by shader operations rather that frambuffer issues, thus making your (32-16) argument obsolete.

[BabyJesus]

Looks pretty good to me, sure there is alot of brown but what did you expect from a desolate local?? The premise of the game sound cool too.. It'd be nice to get a demo though...

[KarmaGhost]

I dunno, I still don't know about this one. Some screens look good, while others look terrible. The textures seem to lack a certain sharpness. Take a look at screen #14; see those hills in the background beyond the trees? There's nothing on them, will this game have some crazy pop-up issues?

[H.Bogard]

Anyone who thinks this game looks ugly needs to have his fucking eyes plucked out and shoved up his cornhole.
Looks better than a tonne of 360 games that I've seen around.

[Mr.Zip]

I'm super excited for this. Looks awesome to me but I think I've mellowed out the past few years. I don't really care if it's not running the latest/greatest. *shrug* I still think it looks pretty.

[GigaFuzz]

Looks pretty great to me. Jaggies are no worse than any other game I've seen, and I personally think the art direction is fantastic. Sure, it might not be chocked full of the latest effects, but for me, generally art direction > technicalities. I don't play either, but WoW looks way better than say, EQ2.

[Schnoogs]

Anyone who thinks this game looks ugly needs to have his fucking eyes plucked out and shoved up his cornhole.
Looks better than a tonne of 360 games that I've seen around.

people love to be cynical about this game...I'll give it a fair chance when it comes out later this month.

the same people who complain that "graphics dont make games" and now complaining "this game looks so fucking dated now"

[Fartacus]

On top of that, all of the textures look extremely washed out. Chances are, the game is using way to small of a color palette because art assets targets the hardware from 4 or 5 years ago.

That statement is absurd. Hardware from 7+ years ago didn't have "color palette" limitations except for the absence of HDR texture formats. The color palette is a result of art direction, end of story. Hardware paletted texture formats were abandoned years ago, and most hardware doesn't support paletted formats directly these days (although they can be implemented in pixel shaders using dependent texture reads).

That being said, I think the screenshots look pretty good. Nothing revolutionary technically, but it works.

[Schnoogs]

That statement is absurd. Hardware from 7+ years ago didn't have "color palette" limitations except for the absence of HDR texture formats. The color palette is a result of art direction, end of story. Hardware paletted texture formats were abandoned years ago, and most hardware doesn't support paletted formats directly these days (although they can be implemented in pixel shaders using dependent texture reads).

That being said, I think the screenshots look pretty good. Nothing revolutionary technically, but it works.

Quoted for truth...good post

[TheEpicOfTyler]

I like it because nothing looks repeated. They do a good job at making everything look natural.

Some of the shots still look very impressive as well.

The texturing is still very good.
http://www.evilavatar.com/images/previews/stalker/39317_stalkershadowof.jpg

You never see the same brick or combinations of bricks on this entire building. Blatant tiles are very annoying to me when I'm playing a game.
http://www.evilavatar.com/images/previews/stalker/39298_stalkershadowof.jpg

Some spots may look dated, but this is still an impressive game.

[Steele Johnson]

The gameplay must be amazing, given all the time they've spent working on it. The time spent was definitely not on the engine and the graphics, because it looks the same. So if all this extra time was story and gameplay, then this might turn out to incredible.

[Serapth]

That statement is absurd. Hardware from 7+ years ago didn't have "color palette" limitations except for the absence of HDR texture formats.

Hardware from 7 years ago very much did have the limitation. That was the age of the VooDoo 3, which was limited to 16 bit color. It was also about the time nVidia released the TNT2, which was a 32 bit capable card, that however lacked enough video ram to really take advantage of it.

[Parsifal]

What it may lack in technical eye-candy, it more than makes up for with atmosphere.

[Borys]

Way to ruin a perfectly good PC exclusive game thread, Serapth.

Bah.

[fitbabits]

Way to ruin a perfectly good PC exclusive game thread, Serapth.

Bah.
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

[AntB]

When oh when will developers finally match the geometry of structures to their textures? I don't think I've ever seen a freakin' BRICK building, where the damn texture fit the building.

[ÜberJumper]

This game looks eye pleasing enough for me. This is the kind of FPS I can sink my teeth into.

One thing that does bother me (and this is for a lot of games) is when they plop a building down on the terrain, but do nothing to make it look like a real building was build there.

Example here (http://www.evilavatar.com/images/previews/stalker/39298_stalkershadowof.jpg). Look at where the buildling meets the ground underneath the character in that shot.

[Serapth]

Way to ruin a perfectly good PC exclusive game thread, Serapth.

Bah.


Yes, I ruined the thread by being of the opinion the game doesnt look great.... :rolleyes: Not the half dozen people that attacked me for daring to have a different opinion.

[StoneGut]

I'll be picking it up - been following it since day one - which makes me feel old.

[DingBat]

I like it because nothing looks repeated. They do a good job at making everything look natural.

You never see the same brick or combinations of bricks on this entire building. Blatant tiles are very annoying to me when I'm playing a game.
http://www.evilavatar.com/images/previews/stalker/39298_stalkershadowof.jpg

Some spots may look dated, but this is still an impressive game.

Maybe, but in that last shot you referenced, I seem to see some very visible stretching of the brick texture. Maybe it's just the screen shot, but it's there.

[AntB]

Yes, I ruined the thread by being of the opinion the game doesnt look great.... :rolleyes: Not the half dozen people that attacked me for daring to have a different opinion.

Different opinion? What you said was at least completely untrue and at most completely retarded. You were disproved by multiple people, yet you kept arguing that the game has a "color palette problem"...

What the fuck do you expect, Chernobyl to look like teletubbie land?

[UnderHero5]

Yes, I ruined the thread by being of the opinion the game doesnt look great.... :rolleyes: Not the half dozen people that attacked me for daring to have a different opinion.
You didn't present it as an opinion. It's fine if you just say "I don't think the game looks good" and say why. I have no problem with that.

I thought it was stupid of you to claim (as fact) that the game was technically limited and wasn't using 32bit textures, etc. That isn't "opinion". The game IS using 32bit textures. Not to mention your ill-informed comments about Anti Aliasing. You seemed to not know how AA works.
Saying the game looks like it's from 4-5 years ago also is not opinion, because it's a FACT that games did not look as nice as Stalker 4-5 years ago (technically speaking... which is what you were talking about. Not artistically).

[Serapth]

Different opinion? What you said was at least completely untrue and at most completely retarded. You were disproved by multiple people, yet you kept arguing that the game has a "color palette problem"...

What the fuck do you expect, Chernobyl to look like teletubbie land?


Sigh. Im saying shots look like they suffer from legacy effects. Some of those shots have horrible jaggies and washed out textures. That is exactly what I said. I proposed one reason behind that could be because the game was still using some art assets from earlier in its development, and a limited palette would explain why things look so bad.

Additionally, I wasnt disproved. Ask any developer on this site if there werent texture constrants until recently. Any artist on the PS2 most likely is very aware of dealing with lower resolution textures, and yes, limiting the palette. Its a simple matter of image compression. If you keep your palette limited, the texture size is smaller. Even if rendered at 32 bit in the end, a texture that uses minimal colors is going to compress MUCH better. Until recently, video memory conservation was a huge deal, and a development house would do whatever tricks they could to fit more into less.

Simple put, just because people scream loudly at you, doesnt make you wrong.

[Serapth]

You didn't present it as an opinion. It's fine if you just say "I don't think the game looks good" and say why. I have no problem with that.


Jesus @$@#$@ CHRIST! This is an internet message board... does that statement "That looks ugly!" not automatically get assumed as an opinion?????!?!!???? Hell, even in real life, if I see a car I dont like I will say to a friend "That is ugly". I wont say, "Well, in my opinion, that is ugly". Its, well.. assumed.

[Nerv]

My anticipation for this game has swung from all out excitement, to apathy to a cautious optimism. Recent buzz has been good though, and I think this is one of those games thats worth playing, even if it's a bomb.

[Schnoogs]

Hardware from 7 years ago very much did have the limitation. That was the age of the VooDoo 3, which was limited to 16 bit color. It was also about the time nVidia released the TNT2, which was a 32 bit capable card, that however lacked enough video ram to really take advantage of it.

7 years ago I bought my GeForce 2.

You're off by a few years which is an eternity in this field.

[claws]

I thought it was stupid of you to claim (as fact) that the game was technically limited and wasn't using 32bit textures, etc.
I don't think he claimed it was a 'fact', and besides he might well be right. We don't have the original textures to check.

Saying the game looks like it's from 4-5 years ago also is not opinion, because it's a FACT that games did not look as nice as Stalker 4-5 years ago
'games didn't look as nice 4-5 years ago technically speaking' makes no sense. If you're saying games didn't look as good 4-5 years ago - well, that's clearly an opinion, and if you mean they weren't as technically advanced that's probably a fact. Either way, the HL2 leak can't be that far off 4 years ago now, and to me at least that looks prettier than Stalker :)

[Serapth]

7 years ago I bought my GeForce 2.

You're off by a few years which is an eternity in this field.


I was going off this chart. (http://accelenation.com/?ac.id.123.1) and my memory. I remember buying a brand new GeForce DDR annihilator from creative labs right when they came out, and being about a year or two ahead of the curve. Yes, newer cards were out, but i peg 2000 as about the time the TNT2 transitioned to the GeForce cards. I missed by about a year it appears.

[Dag-Sabot]

What the fuck do you expect, Chernobyl to look like teletubbie land? Only at night.

[UnderHero5]

Jesus @$@#$@ CHRIST! This is an internet message board... does that statement "That looks ugly!" not automatically get assumed as an opinion?????!?!!???? Hell, even in real life, if I see a car I dont like I will say to a friend "That is ugly". I wont say, "Well, in my opinion, that is ugly". Its, well.. assumed.
Settle down, little guy.
I don't like seeing the children cry.

I'm not going to bother quoting all the misinformation you presented, as we've already read it. But guess what... saying the game looks the way it does because of technical limitations isn't an "opinion"... That's like saying "the world is flat and that's my OPINION so you can't dispute it". If it's based on a fact, and you're wrong... then its just you making shit up. It's not an opinion.

The game isn't mostly dark and brown because of texture limitations. It's because it's based in Chernobyl. You seriously sound stupid saying it's because of color palette limitations. Every texture is normal mapped, there are soft shadows, pixel shader effects, advanced AI (supposedly) but they couldn't be bothered to increase the color palette on the textures past what a 16-32mb videocard could handle... yeah. Good logic you've got there. :rolleyes:

Oh, but it's your OPINION so no one should call you on it.

Obviously they didn't make everything brown because it's based in an area of nuclear fallout. It's because it's using 7 year old textures made for a VooDoo3.

[walkstheplanes]

My anticipation for this game has swung from all out excitement, to apathy to a cautious optimism. Recent buzz has been good though, and I think this is one of those games thats worth playing, even if it's a bomb.

Hah, yeah. Cautious optimism goes for Fallout 3 as well... Spore on the other hand, I'm gushing.

Serapth: Ignore these wankers and go find your spirit animal. It'll make it all better.

[Lunar Blue]

Fuck you guys, i think the game still looks freaking awesome ;)

[Serapth]

Sigh, you arent following. Some assets in the game obviously havent been updated as much as others. In a game with 7 years behind it, some things are going to get left behind, and its rather obvious in some of those screen shots that it has happened. Some of the texture is of a much lower resolution and/or color depth as that art was created at an earlier time. There is no way they can afford to keep going back and constantly updating the artwork, no game company can. And it shows in the image quality of some of those screenshots. Plus, in many of those screenshots, they definatly *arent* normal mapped, nor are using advanced pixel shaders.

[UnderHero5]

I don't think he claimed it was a 'fact', and besides he might well be right. We don't have the original textures to check.


'games didn't look as nice 4-5 years ago technically speaking' makes no sense. If you're saying games didn't look as good 4-5 years ago - well, that's clearly an opinion, and if you mean they weren't as technically advanced that's probably a fact. Either way, the HL2 leak can't be that far off 4 years ago now, and to me at least that looks prettier than Stalker :)
What I mean by "technically" is bells and whistles. They didn't have the high res textures, level of detail, amount of polygons, pixel shader effects, lighting effects, soft shadows, HDR, etc of games today.

Of course whether you like the look of a certain game is completely opinion. But whether a game has the technical features like those I listed above, is not opinion.

[Fartacus]

Hardware from 7 years ago very much did have the limitation. That was the age of the VooDoo 3, which was limited to 16 bit color. It was also about the time nVidia released the TNT2, which was a 32 bit capable card, that however lacked enough video ram to really take advantage of it.

Sorry, but that was not the age of the Voodoo 3 and TNT. 2000 was the GeForce & GeForce 2 era, 3Dfx was all but dead.

I know my graphics hardware history very well, I used to work for Quantum3D, a spinoff of 3Dfx, and at Creative Labs around that time period. At both companies I worked on graphics drivers and tools, so I know the feature sets and limitations very well. And my current work is still very graphics centric so I've continued to keep on top of it.

[claws]

Of course whether you like the look of a certain game is completely opinion. But whether a game has the technical features like those I listed above, is not opinion.
We agree on the technical bits. But if somebody says 'it looks like a game from 4-5 years ago', I can see where they're coming from, and in my mind it's a perfectly valid opinion for a game that doesn't appear to be overflowing with technical trickery. I think in some shots it does look quite dated (but great in others) ; it wouldn't surprise me if the sudden pressure to get a release does leave quite a lot of ugly stuff and old placeholder textures in places, and some of that might well date from 6-7+ years ago. From what I hear they've been rushing to finish the story/AI/fix bugs, so old textures are going to be low on the priority list.

[Serapth]

Sorry, but that was not the age of the Voodoo 3 and TNT. 2000 was the GeForce & GeForce 2 era, 3Dfx was all but dead.

I know my graphics hardware history very well, I used to work for Quantum3D, a spinoff of 3Dfx, and at Creative Labs around that time period. At both companies I worked on graphics drivers and tools, so I know the feature sets and limitations very well. And my current work is still very graphics centric so I've continued to keep on top of it.


Then again, you were on the cutting edge. Graphics adoption rates were never anything like they are now. Then again, even now, you still expect a game to support DX 7 era cards to a certain degree, even though those are how many years old? It was only recently, with pixel shaders that games like EQ2 and BF2 started dropping older video card support.

[UnderHero5]

We agree on the technical bits. But if somebody says 'it looks like a game from 4-5 years ago', I can see where they're coming from, and in my mind it's a perfectly valid opinion for a game that doesn't appear to be overflowing with technical trickery. I think in some shots it does look quite dated (but great in others) ; it wouldn't surprise me if the sudden pressure to get a release does leave quite a lot of ugly stuff and old placeholder textures in places, and some of that might well date from 6-7+ years ago. From what I hear they've been rushing to finish the story/AI/fix bugs, so old textures are going to be low on the priority list.
Well I definitely agree that there will be certain things that are dated. Yes, even textures. I, however, have to completely disagree that any of the textures in any of the screen shots right now are from 6-7 years ago. They are absolutely not. Perhaps people have forgotten just how crappy textures looked back then. Honestly.

Textures from 2-3 years ago, sure. 5+? No way. I just don't see anything in the screens that look that poor.

[UnderHero5]

Then again, you were on the cutting edge. Graphics adoption rates were never anything like they are now. Then again, even now, you still expect a game to support DX 7 era cards to a certain degree, even though those are how many years old? It was only recently, with pixel shaders that games like EQ2 and BF2 started dropping older video card support.
Supporting old hardware and building your game around old hardware are two very different things though. You know that, I'm sure. So what's your point?

[Serapth]

Well I definitely agree that there will be certain things that are dated. Yes, even textures. I, however, have to completely disagree that any of the textures in any of the screen shots right now are from 6-7 years ago. They are absolutely not. Perhaps people have forgotten just how crappy textures looked back then. Honestly.

Textures from 2-3 years ago, sure. 5+? No way. I just don't see anything in the screens that look that poor.


Well, considering I said art from 4-5 years ago, it looks like we may actually be close to agreeing....

The 7 years ago refers to when the game started development.

[DevilUknow]

I may get this game just because I am impatient for a new Fallout.

And it might actually run on my system...

[Fartacus]

Then again, you were on the cutting edge. Graphics adoption rates were never anything like they are now. Then again, even now, you still expect a game to support DX 7 era cards to a certain degree, even though those are how many years old? It was only recently, with pixel shaders that games like EQ2 and BF2 started dropping older video card support.

You're digging yourself a deeper hole. Development teams building a game typically target current hardware knowing that the hardware will advance by the time the game ships, and GeForce was in no way cutting edge in 2000 (GeForce 2 was). Color palette was not a limitation in any way when S.T.A.L.K.E.R. was a concept written on the back of a napkin.

Noone expects anything but casual games to support DX7 era cards these days. We're at a stage where DX8 cards (shader model 1) are being dropped, and DX9 cards (shader model 2 and up) is required. Thief 3 and Deus Ex: IW, both released 3 years ago, required a card capable of shader model 1.

[timmyd]

Just because the hardware and art are 32 bit, does not mean the results have to be.

For instance, shader code uses 32-bit registers, at least when I was hacking about in DX9.

An example: Let's pretend we have a gray scale video card with 100 grayscales. So, 0=black, 99=very white.

A very bright white light is shone on a very white surface.
The really silly light model simply multiplies the color. (It's an example, ok?)
99 * 99 = 9801 But wait!!!!!! We only have 100 gray scales. So we chop of the 98 and end up with 01! Because our color register can't handle values over 99.

So a really bright light on a really bright surface using a really dumb lighting model is .... black?

So... 32bit hardware with 32bit art can still suck.
This is why Carmack was asking for 64-bit a while back.

[UnderHero5]

Well, considering I said art from 4-5 years ago, it looks like we may actually be close to agreeing....

The 7 years ago refers to when the game started development.
Yeah, I know, but what I disagree with is the whole "limited color palette" thing. We weren't really limited, color wise, 4 years ago, when it came to textures. I understand what you're saying, compressing textures can make colors washed out, but that is obviously not the case with this game. And textures from 4 years ago were not required to be as compressed as much as to make everything brown. In fact they never have been. Even seven or eight years ago when I was playing Unreal Tournament, it has nice bright colors and some amazing texture work for it's time. That was on my old VooDoo3.

4 years ago I was using a 128mb GeForce 4 and playing plenty of brightly colored games. This game is quite obviously NOT using textures from an era where they needed to be compressed so much as to make everything brown.

The screens look "washed out" because of the ample amount of blurry bloom over the whole screen, which we can hopefully shut off.
The newest Rainbow Six has the same effect and I personally think it looks like complete ass (only in R6 Vegas you can't shut it off, only turn it down).

[AntB]

A very bright white light is shone on a very white surface.
The really silly light model simply multiplies the color. (It's an example, ok?)
99 * 99 = 9801 But wait!!!!!! We only have 100 gray scales. So we chop of the 98 and end up with 01! Because our color register can't handle values over 99.

...Why would you round out like that? Who does that? ... removing the thousand and hundred digits and leaving the tens and singles? Uh? You're math seems flawed sir...

[goc_sin]

Those shots look great, I can't wait to play on my 8800.

[MrDrinkingLysol]

You people do realize you've been arguing about textures for 4 pages now, right?

[Fartacus]

Just because the hardware and art are 32 bit, does not mean the results have to be.

For instance, shader code uses 32-bit registers, at least when I was hacking about in DX9.

An example: Let's pretend we have a gray scale video card with 100 grayscales. So, 0=black, 99=very white.

A very bright white light is shone on a very white surface.
The really silly light model simply multiplies the color. (It's an example, ok?)
99 * 99 = 9801 But wait!!!!!! We only have 100 gray scales. So we chop of the 98 and end up with 01! Because our color register can't handle values over 99.

So a really bright light on a really bright surface using a really dumb lighting model is .... black?

So... 32bit hardware with 32bit art can still suck.
This is why Carmack was asking for 64-bit a while back.

You need to hack around some more, because your example is very wrong.

Colors are between zero and one (for non-hdr sources). Positive numbers between zero and one multiplied together give you and answer between zero and one. Modulated lighting, which is what you describe, can only darken surfaces, not brighten them.

Where Carmack had problems was light accumulation being done. The Doom 3 renderer accumulates contributions from lights into the framebuffer in separate passes (in the general case). While the shader pipleline supports greater than 8 bits per component internally, it gets quantized to 8 bits per component when it's written to the framebuffer. As a result, error accumulates with each rendering pass. Support for floating point render targets and/or greater than 8 bit per channel fixed or integer formats reduces the error accumulation.

[BlackPete]

Looks cool. I'll probably give it a try and see if it's somehow better than the 100000 other FPSes out there.

Although... what's the deal with the soldier's legs in shot #7? It looks like it must be a feature and not a bug, but looks strange.

http://www.evilavatar.com/images/previews/image.php?image=www.evilavatar.com/images/previews/stalker/39309_stalkershadowof.jpg

[Knite]

Man... it's amazing.. those textures DO look washed out. I found some more STALKER pics, and it's amazing how drab and dull they are...

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-land-of-the-wolves/imag27.2.jpg
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-land-of-the-wolves/imag29.1.jpg
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-land-of-the-wolves/imag35.4.jpg
http://tincan.shackspace.com/Stalker%20Chernobyl%20tour/derevnya02.jpg
http://tincan.shackspace.com/Stalker%20Chernobyl%20tour/derevnya04.jpg

Hmmm... wait... that's actually the Chernobyl area... damn, God needs to work with a broader color palette! =P

[timmyd]

You need to hack around some more, because your example is very wrong.

Colors are between zero and one (for non-hdr sources). Positive numbers between zero and one multiplied together give you and answer between zero and one. Modulated lighting, which is what you describe, can only darken surfaces, not brighten them.

Where Carmack had problems was light accumulation being done. The Doom 3 renderer accumulates contributions from lights into the framebuffer in separate passes (in the general case). While the shader pipleline supports greater than 8 bits per component internally, it gets quantized to 8 bits per component when it's written to the framebuffer. As a result, error accumulates with each rendering pass. Support for floating point render targets and/or greater than 8 bit per channel fixed or integer formats reduces the error accumulation.

You're right, but I was trying to give a simplified example.

So there. And ... YOUR MOM!

[Evil_SPanKY]

You people do realize you've been arguing about textures for 4 pages now, right?

This is EA....WHat the hell else are we going to do, on a Friday afternoon at work? Do actual work? To hell I say!

[walkstheplanes]

Man... it's amazing.. those textures DO look washed out. I found some more STALKER pics, and it's amazing how drab and dull they are...

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-land-of-the-wolves/imag27.2.jpg
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-land-of-the-wolves/imag29.1.jpg
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-land-of-the-wolves/imag35.4.jpg
http://tincan.shackspace.com/Stalker%20Chernobyl%20tour/derevnya02.jpg
http://tincan.shackspace.com/Stalker%20Chernobyl%20tour/derevnya04.jpg

Hmmm... wait... that's actually the Chernobyl area... damn, God needs to work with a broader color palette! =P

Hur Hur Hur :D

[MacD]

I was gonna post something about Fartacus, Serapth and timmyd....but then I realised that arguing on the internet is like taking part in the special olympics.

Anyway, good to know at least a few people here know what they're talking about (or at least it smells that way :)).

[screwtape]

Although... what's the deal with the soldier's legs in shot #7? It looks like it must be a feature and not a bug, but looks strange.

http://www.evilavatar.com/images/previews/image.php?image=www.evilavatar.com/images/previews/stalker/39309_stalkershadowof.jpg
In all the previews I've read, the devs mention "anomalies" - pockets of extreme radiation that cause funky things to happen. Explosions, tornadoes, matter transportation - you name it. The floor and wall around his legs are warped as well, so I'm assuming that's a radioactive anomaly bending the light.

In any case, I think the game looks great. Some of those screens ooze atmosphere. And the single-player preview linked earlier in this thread has me excited - moral ambiguity, intelligent AI, bribery, killing a teammate for his gear - all good stuff.

I wonder if they kept their old promise about co-op. Has anybody seen mention of it recently?

[timmyd]

I was gonna post something about Fartacus, Serapth and timmyd....but then I realised that arguing on the internet is like taking part in the special olympics.

Anyway, good to know at least a few people here know what they're talking about (or at least it smells that way :)).

I'd gloat after being mentioned in such company, but it was hard enough to get "HelloWorld" to work after loading the example program "Helloworld." :D

[Schnoogs]

In all the previews I've read, the devs mention "anomalies" - pockets of extreme radiation that cause funky things to happen. Explosions, tornadoes, matter transportation - you name it. The floor and wall around his legs are warped as well, so I'm assuming that's a radioactive anomaly bending the light.

In any case, I think the game looks great. Some of those screens ooze atmosphere. And the single-player preview linked earlier in this thread has me excited - moral ambiguity, intelligent AI, bribery, killing a teammate for his gear - all good stuff.

I wonder if they kept their old promise about co-op. Has anybody seen mention of it recently?


Thats a heat shimmer

[MrWonderstuff]

Man... it's amazing.. those textures DO look washed out. I found some more STALKER pics, and it's amazing how drab and dull they are...

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-land-of-the-wolves/imag27.2.jpg
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-land-of-the-wolves/imag29.1.jpg
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-land-of-the-wolves/imag35.4.jpg
http://tincan.shackspace.com/Stalker%20Chernobyl%20tour/derevnya02.jpg
http://tincan.shackspace.com/Stalker%20Chernobyl%20tour/derevnya04.jpg

Hmmm... wait... that's actually the Chernobyl area... damn, God needs to work with a broader color palette! =P



My point exactly earlier on the thread. Anyway and I'll shout this again....I'm playing the multiplayer beta and its better, graphically then any other multiplayer shooter out there. Full stop.

[Schnoogs]

My point exactly earlier on the thread. Anyway and I'll shout this again....I'm playing the multiplayer beta and its better, graphically then any other multiplayer shooter out there. Full stop.

Noone wants to hear from someone whos actually played the game and has an open mind ;)

[Disgustipated]

The game looks great, guys. And the gameplay is going to be fantastic, from what I've read. For a game that took 6 years to complete, it might all be worth it. I can see STALKER possibly being one of the best games of the year.

[F3nyx]

I can't believe I'm actually getting excited about this again, but I am. The graphics do look mildly dated, but I play plenty of uglier games and my laptop can't handle modern graphics anyway.

[YoungAlCapone]

I am frothing at the mouth for this game. I am so very, very excited.

[MrWonderstuff]

Noone wants to hear from someone whos actually played the game and has an open mind ;)

*sigh* clearly.

[YoungAlCapone]

*sigh* clearly.

I do.

What are your system specs like and what settings were you able to run it at? How did it perform overall?

[KingGorilla]

My point exactly earlier on the thread. Anyway and I'll shout this again....I'm playing the multiplayer beta and its better, graphically then any other multiplayer shooter out there. Full stop.
I am not quite sure why so many folks are hating on this game. Everything I have heard lately is very positive about the experience. I am really intrigued to see how their Multiplayer tiem cahnge will effect the experience.

[MrWonderstuff]

x2 3800
7800GS
2Gb RAM

OK, lets just say that I turn off the dynamic lighting as it causes severe frame drops but I keep every other setting at max (lighting is set at 'static'). Dynamic Lighting causes a bloom effect on things which, to me, doesnt seem realistic - havent really seen the benefit to be honest. However without that it is crispy sharp, runs like butter (60fps) and looks very 'urban' and gritty. I'm running 1280x1024.

As for multiplayer...its really hard. I'm a cs veteran and it really is a question of keeping a low profile and shooting when necessary (it screams *camp* but thats sort of accepted in this game). It's highly realistic (ie a few shots and your dead) which will certainly put people off. But its tense and rewards you with better equipment when you reach a certain skill level within the round. It's a very busy environment with loads of places to hide, camp, tactically place oneself.

[randir14]

This and C&C 3 are the only games i'm looking forward to. The MP beta was really fun, the levels were the most detailed i've ever seen in a game. Some European game magazine that played the game called it the most atmospheric FPS ever.

[dead]

has THQ released their specs for the game yet?

[drakkarim]

that pic on the main page sure looks about how i remember eastern europe from my childhood, i would say the colors are spot on.

[Wasson_]

The game looks like it should look.

[bosx2]

mark my words:
"THIS GAME SUCKS"

[Fartacus]

mark my words:
"THIS GAME SUCKS"

why does it suck?

[bosx2]

I was on 3 press events and had my hands on several press-betas.

This game feels cheap in many ways. From sound effects & voices, to animations (what I found is the most crappiest stuff in this game), to a so horrible low poly enemy design, that you think you bought a budget titles from 2kgames.
Every oh so unique aspect they praised over the 7 years of development is half or not present! For example the anomalies, its just a other word for spawning enemies... crap. If you played doom 3, you know what they meant with anomalies and spawning enemies.
The whole interface is horrible, when you pick up an item a fullscreen inventory pops up, you have to drag and drop each item you want, horrible solution. Some pieces are so small, that its just pain to grab items from dead enemies.

The latest built I played was on january, and still the animations are extremely horrible. When an person moves over the ground, it looks like it slides over the ground (we had this 10 years ago, but its not 2007 standard!). Same goes with tons of other animations, all the reloading animations are horrible, not bad, no no .. REAL HORRIBLE. The whole eye candy is not there.

It played like a 0815 shooter, that is so unimportant that noone will talk about this in April anymore.


/excuse my language, but english is not my mother language

[KingGorilla]

Not to be a dick...but why should I believe a guy who spells as terribly as you do?

[Schnoogs]

I was on 3 press events and had my hands on several press-betas.

This game feels cheap in many ways. From sound effects & voices, to animations (what I found is the most crappiest stuff in this game), to a so horrible low poly enemy design, that you think you bought a budget titles from 2kgames.
Every oh so unique aspect they praised over the 7 years of development is half or not present! For example the anomalies, its just a other word for spawning enemies... crap. If you played doom 3, you know what they meant with anomalies and spawning enemies.
The whole interface is horrible, when you pick up an item a fullscreen inventory pops up, you have to drag and drop each item you want, horrible solution. Some pieces are so small, that its just pain to grab items from dead enemies.

The latest built I played was on january, and still the animations are extremely horrible. When an person moves over the ground, it looks like it slides over the ground (we had this 10 years ago, but its not 2007 standard!). Same goes with tons of other animations, all the reloading animations are horrible, not bad, no no .. REAL HORRIBLE. The whole eye candy is not there.

It played like a 0815 shooter, that is so unimportant that noone will talk about this in April anymore.

Early troll scouting report...I think we have a first round pick here!! :p

[roboninja]

I must say, the screenies still impress me, especially given the fact that the game has been in production so long. When a game has that long of a lifecycle, it often looks very dated when it is finally released. I think this still looks nearly as good as some of the newer stuff to come out.

[Gel214th]

I see nothing wrong with the graphics. Flipping through the ENTIRe gallery of images, instead of fixating on just the one used in this post, I see lots of great graphics to like.

The graphics are true to the original area, which was a major goal for the team. I don't see why they should through lots of browns and blues and greens if Chernobyl itself looks like a faded, washed out mess. Maybe someone can recreate a nice Walt Disney Chernobyl by modifying the textures just for you folks.

I'm also sure that if you DO have a wicked SLI system that you can turn on super AA and get rid of the jaggies if you so desire (with HDR if you have an ATI board apparently).

People spreading lots of FUD, aren't they.

[Dag-Sabot]

Some of them have seen the beta, apparently. Others are taking the power of positive thinking to a ridiculous degree. I'm reserving judgment until release.
-Right by the window.