S.T.A.L.K.E.R. - Retrospective @ Eurogamer

Eurogamer has posted some discussion with GSC's Oleg Yavorsky which for some reason they've broken up into two articles. The first, about some issues with the long development cycle can be found in this article, First S.T.A.L.K.E.R. hamstrung by over-ambition:

"...there was just this ambitious concept: S.T.A.L.K.E.R. was to be the ultimate game, with a mix of pretty much everything - shooter, RPG, survival horror, driving.
"We were inexperienced and took on too much," added Yavorsky. Obviously there's a bit more experience floating around now though, because prequel Clear Sky has only taken a year and a half and will be out on 29th August.

Click to expand...

and the second piece concerning it's North American reception is here in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. misunderstood in US:

"We've never had problems with getting Europeans to understand our games, and we have had problems with North America and Asia," said Yavorsky...
"Also, we've always created hardcore games, and the mass-market audience is now pretty much casual. Big companies always want you to make your game as easy as possible, so that any really non-intellectual person can play it. They want all sorts of tutorials to guide the player through, and this is something we've always been very resistant to.

"But then, everything, even up to the colour spectrum and how bright your game is, can be an issue. It seems that to appeal to North America you need really flashy, bright games, and you can see that every Eastern European game is very dark," added Yavorsky.

Click to expand...

More information.

It seems that to appeal to North America you need really flashy, bright games, and you can see that every Eastern European game is very dark.

Click to expand...

I've never been outside the continental '48, yet it would seem I am Eastern European at heart.

Just don't expect me to drink the vodka.

I enjoyed STALKER but then again I didn't read every scrap of info about it before it came out until I was so hyped up that actually being there with real guns fighting real mutants would have been a letdown.

Now I know why Germans are making shiny and bright Gothic 4's menu for America, lol.

I wonder if it's all Walt Disneys fault...

As a North American Gamer, that "flashy, bright games" comment makes completely no sense to me. Sounds like a ridiculous misconception.

roguefrog said:

As a North American Gamer, that "flashy, bright games" comment makes completely no sense to me. Sounds like a ridiculous misconception.

Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense to me.

It's like the difference between the typical Hollywood movie and the typical european movie.

It seems americans are simply better at understanding how to generate revenue from movies and games - or perhaps entertainment in general - and that means reaching a larger audience. Europeans typically do things on a much smaller scale, and as such don't need to target the wider audience.

I'm talking in general, of course, but it's so plain you'd have to be a fool not to see it.

It's not a case of americans being stupid or needing bright colors, it's more the case of americans seeing entertainment as a business before anything else - and europeans are perhaps slightly more concerned with the integrity of the art - because they don't have to worry about their huge investments on the same scale.

Naturally, as the gaming industry becomes more and more mainstream - this will change. The big business side is definitely winning, as you can hear from that interview about targeting consoles even though they don't really understand the hardware and their games will be compromised due to the limitations of the systems.

Correct analysis

If you want a comparison:

Compare Crysis and Stalker.

Crysis has big shiny miniguns, purdy explosions, flying bodies, bright, colourful, cheerful graphics. You _never_ run out of ammo, you can snipe your enemies with ease at 250m with an assault rifle. Your health regenerates in seconds, you never have to worry about stupid things like bleeding, eating. You can engage godmode at will (it's called the cloak, folks), run in cirlces around chaps and do random mayhem.

Now let's return to stalker for a moment. Ever shot a firearm? Well Stalker has got the ballistics just about right. Guns are loud, inaccurate and deadly. Try doing the same thing in Stalker you did in crysis - you get shot. And holy shit mother of God - you're bleeding! But you're too tough to bleed, god damnit! And if you make the mistake of thinking your assault rifle is a machine gun then surprise again - jammed. Impossible, you cry! I'm American, I'm the good guy, meh guns ain't suppostta' jam!"

Frustrated you apply the same tactic that brought you success in crysis. You load a new magazine and run towards your virtual enemies with a battlecry on your lips "I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER!!!". And guess what, you die.

I'll be honest - I have no idea what people see in Crysis. I finished that game with very few kills, at least half of them by melee attacks and on delta difficulty. Crysis has the storyline of your average C/B class movie and the atmosphere just as enthralling as that of a porta-potty. Stalker on the other hand is inspired by Tarkovsky's work - his films simply oozing with style and atmoshpere. I found myself replaying that game more than once - I loved the setting, the industrial rot, the world. The amount of detail is years beyond crysis. Hell, the game inspired me to visit Chernobyl.

Note: This post is in no way anti-American.

@archont, I agree 100% with your descriptions of Crysis and S.T.A.L.K.E.R., except that I never even finished Crysis; I got bored a few hours in. There's just one little flaw in your example.

Crysis is German.

I didn't think Crysis was that easy. I thought it was just right. Compared to Bioshock, it was prison rape. I love both games though. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. a bit more. The more I look back on S.T.A.L.K.E.R., the more I think of it as a masterpiece.

When people talk about sales, there's something even more important than style -- it's marketing. The reason why nobody bought S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or Crysis in the US is because these games were very poorly marketed, not because the colors weren't bright enough. Nobody has ever heard of the former and everyone thinks the latter requires some kind of $4,000 supercomputer to run (which is totally false). People buy games like Assassins Creed, Call of Duty 4, and Gears of War, and the color palettes for those games are as drab as can be. Games that are marketed sell. Games that aren't marketed fail. Just look at Boom Blox. Universally good critical reception. Abysmal sales that make Troika's games look like blockbuster smash hits.

DArtagnan said:

It makes perfect sense to me.

It's like the difference between the typical Hollywood movie and the typical european movie.

It seems americans are simply better at understanding how to generate revenue from movies and games - or perhaps entertainment in general - and that means reaching a larger audience. Europeans typically do things on a much smaller scale, and as such don't need to target the wider audience.

I'm talking in general, of course, but it's so plain you'd have to be a fool not to see it.

It's not a case of americans being stupid or needing bright colors, it's more the case of americans seeing entertainment as a business before anything else - and europeans are perhaps slightly more concerned with the integrity of the art - because they don't have to worry about their huge investments on the same scale.

Naturally, as the gaming industry becomes more and more mainstream - this will change. The big business side is definitely winning, as you can hear from that interview about targeting consoles even though they don't really understand the hardware and their games will be compromised due to the limitations of the systems.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree.

I strongly believe that there are some cultural differences between Europe and the U.S. - and between single countries of course as well.

Now, what happens, is, that these cultural unique items[/iu] of "american culture" are exported. Exported with each game into each country, into each buyer's brain.

This is simple export of culture to me.

It's kind of influencing.

The only thing we *don't* know is of what these "cultural unique items" exist.

It could be like what D'Artagnan says, Art. Colours. The whole regarding of games as a medium per se.


By the way, Far Cry and Crysis are - as far as I know - made by Turkish developers. So it's rather a Turkish game, imho.
I don't know how much they were influenced by the fact that their development studio sits in Germany, but to me, it's rather a Turkish game.
From this point of view, they should be proud of the fact that they brought the ability of Turkish programmers, designers, artists, so much into the public (gamer's) attention.

No kidding? I wasn't aware of that. I'll have to tell my colleagues Aydin and Gökhan, they'll be tickled as hell.

He obviously havn't played Condemned. It's difficult to find a game more gloomy than that.

Prime Junta said:

No kidding? I wasn't aware of that. I'll have to tell my colleagues Aydin and Gökhan, they'll be tickled as hell.

Click to expand...

I wrote it as far as I know.

http://www.crytek.com/contact/imprint/

Crytek was originally founded by 3 brothers of Turkish descent, but I don't think that makes the game Turkish. Crytek is broken down as follows:

Crytek’s development team is 213 game professionals from different locations such as Europe (181), Asia (14), North America (10), Oceania (7) and Africa (1)


Still makes archont's rant pretty funny though.

I couldn't disagree more btw. Why would you compare those 2 games to begin with? They're nothing alike and obviously not meant for the same crowd.

JDR13 said:

I couldn't disagree more btw. Why would you compare those 2 games to begin with? They're nothing alike and obviously not meant for the same crowd.

Click to expand...

You think? Both are free-roaming mission-based first-person shooters with highly sophisticated combat AI, based on scavenging guns and gear from the environment, where you fight your way through a bunch of human adversaries to face a Great Unknown Threat To Humanity. In fact, off-hand I can't think of any game currently on the market that's more like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. than Crysis. Can you?

How far into Crysis did you play PJ? It's far from what I would consider a "free-roaming" shooter. In fact it's almost the complete opposite of STALKER in that regard. The levels in Crysis, for the most part, are a straight shot from beginning to end. Other than being able to go a little bit out of the way to find some extra ammo, or finding a second angle of approach to a specific destination, the missions in Crysis are very linear. There's also no gear\items of any kind in Crysis other than weapons.

I just thought it was a strange comparison for our guest to make. Especially since he went out of his way to emphasize the differences, rather than any similarities, between the 2 games.

Roughly 10 hours in. -- You're right, it is more linear, but it's still closer to S.T.A.L.K.E.R. than typical corridor shooters à la Half-Life 2 (which, btw, was a lot more fun IMO). But can you think of a reasonably modern game that's more like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. than Crysis?

Boiling Point perhaps, maybe Bioshock, or any other FPS that doesn't force you along a series of levels which you can't backtrack from. Honestly though, I think STALKER is fairly unique in a way few games are, there are more RPGs that feel similar in atmosphere to STALKER than FPS imo.

I haven't played Boiling Point; going by what I've heard about it, thought, it does sound like they could be good comparisons. Bioshock felt pretty linear to me, though -- even though you *could* backtrack, and there were some missions where you had to backtrack, there wasn't much reason to deviate from the linear plot path. And it was indoors, for what that's worth.

I agree that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. somehow felt like a RPG even though it wasn't, really.