To people who say stalker doesnt look good [56k]

Well that is one out of hundreds. Even though I have yet to play STALKER, I had looked at so many posts. Each saying MAJOR Problems! STALKER is not that great! Besides, you make a thread on graphics, yet comment on the atmosphere.

You may want to argue that STALKER is an overall good game, not the graphics. Maybe four years ago, the graphics were as good as they get, not anymore.

It just baffles me that you can say Half Life 2 is not advanced. That game still looks great even to this day, even though it was released 3 years ago. STALKER, however, does not share the same fate.

PaverPopPC

HL2 has great textures but thats it. Fake hdr, static lighting and of course fake shadows. Way behind recent games. Also keep in mind that a non-linear game like Stalker is almost twice as demanding as a rail shooter like HL2.

Here is a nice screenshot that i just took. This is at medium settings.

Click on it to enlarge.

• Athlon XP 3000+ 2.2 ghz
  
• 1 GB RAM
• Radeon 9800pro 128bit

• Static lighting
• Medium settings
  

• 60 FPS average
  
• Occasional stutter during progressive loading

[QUOTE="PredatorRules"][QUOTE="Letesmetty"][QUOTE="way2funny"]

[QUOTE="Letesmetty"]Looks bad. way2funny

then what looks good for you?

vegas, yes, but FEAR? fear just has nice gore, and the textures are a lot better in stalker. THe lighting puts FEAR to shame as well

Vegas looks like junk, the textures are really terrible low res and its so unoptimised ONLY mid range computers can play it. FEAR on the other hand looks great by comparison and the lighting in STALKER is just incredible. Best lighting effects I've seen in a game yet.

Indoors the game looks equal to Halflife 2: the textures are nice, and environmental effects are nice as well.

Character models are extremely outdated to me however, especially considering how beautiful FEAR's and HL 2's look. Also, outside environments have a very grainy look and I Have textures on max.

The game still looks fine to me, perfectly acceptable even with all the big-budget beauties we have today (Vegas, Oblivion, FEAR, etc).

Just dont get me started on the poor dynamic lighting STALKER has....that will slow down that fastest of rigs. I Have a 7600GT and with it on, I got under 25FPs at 1280x1024 or whatever widescreen is. With it turned off, I get 50+ fps at 1600x1050 with everything on high. Something is definately wrong with that...

mrbojangles25

[QUOTE="way2funny"][QUOTE="PredatorRules"][QUOTE="Letesmetty"][QUOTE="way2funny"]

[QUOTE="Letesmetty"]Looks bad. Platearmor_6

then what looks good for you?

vegas, yes, but FEAR? fear just has nice gore, and the textures are a lot better in stalker. THe lighting puts FEAR to shame as well

Vegas looks like junk, the textures are really terrible low res and its so unoptimised ONLY mid range computers can play it. FEAR on the other hand looks great by comparison and the lighting in STALKER is just incredible. Best lighting effects I've seen in a game yet.

[QUOTE="way2funny"][QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="way2funny"]

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]I completely agree. With how much people were down-talking the graphics, I was ready for a crappy-looking but fun game. Then I installed it, maxed out my graphics, started a new game, and I was floored. I was like, "DAMN". This looks FANTASTIC. It's obviously not the greatest looking game ever, but it looks sooo much better than people seemed to be expecting, and more than competes with any other modern game. Plus, graphics aside, it's one of the best games I've ever played.onemic

Thats all im trying to prove. Im not saying its the best looking game, im just saying its really not as bad as everyone keeps saying, on the contrary, its a pretty darn good looking game in its own right

Im not talking about optimization, im just saying if you have the guts to run it, it looks VERY good. Tats the only point im trying to make.

if you dont care why post who cares?

anyway i think the game looks great even on default low. those screenies in the first post make me want to upgrade so badly from my 6200 turbo crap. 

I think it is funny the entire thread, that is related to the graphical prowess of Stalker, is a comparison to a game releases in 2004. And yes, HL2 does look better...ebcdic

show me Half Life 2 screens that look better than the screens i just posted. Half Life 2 is just more colorful, its brighter. Stalker *looks* worse because of the art style, but technically it is a lot better, and has better lightening, and better effects.

The only thing HL2 does better is character models, but everything else is better in stalker 

IMO, this game looks better than FEAR in some ways. Though I've never played STALKER before, I am judging the graphics soley on screenshots. STALKER looks good indoors compared to outdoors if you ask me. FEAR had boring and repetitve level design. I rather have good, varied level design and less flashy graphics than boring level design and amazing graphics.

i'm drawing the conclusion that ppl hate stalker cuz most cant play it maxed out or that it failed one's expectations, and that they rly prefer hl2 or fear ..mostly hl2 :? anyway it's really weird... at least we can all agree Crysis will pwn :P im so sad right now (i havent got any more games to play) because i cant play stalker, nor fear, nor any other FPSs.... since i got this scarce of playing FPS with monsters -_- :|... :( though i played stalker a bitAlexRadu

yeah stalkers creatures are a really creapy, and do things i couldnt believe that really gets your blood boiling. 

Half Life 2 and Infernal

Half Life 2 and Infernal

Stevendawg

Now add realtime lighting and sandbox levels, watch the framerate plummet.

 

Now add realtime lighting and sandbox levels, watch the framerate plummet.

 

STALKER without mod , vainilla, all setting in maximun