S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Series Megathread - We have death during loading - does Minecraft? - Games

[QUOTE=MattyDienhoff;29439902]You're incorrect and I should know, I helped make LURK. Either you have a different definition of original or you're mistaken because we didn't make any weapon models from scratch. The vast majority of them are from Arsenal (the big pack by Zereset and Dester, not AMK Arsenal which is a different thing entirely), KingFriday reanimated them (top job he did too considering the time pressure and amount of work involved) and a few have new textures, but they're still Arsenal models and I don't think the meshes themselves were modified in any way. Only a few of the new weapons [I]aren't[/I] from Arsenal: the Mosin-Nagant and SKS, most significantly, were sourced from elsewhere. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'm just pointing out that hating any mod because people praise its unoriginal content (however strictly you choose to define that) without knowledge of where it originally came from is stupid, unfair (since when should the ignorance of a mod's players reflect negatively on the mod itself, anyway?) and can be applied to many mods, not just the ones the hivemind here dislikes. I know you guys loathe Complete, and while I disagree I can at least respect that as long as you stick to the "undeserved hype" angle, because that at least made sense.[/QUOTE] Yes I understand now, you cannot differ between something being taken from something else, reworked then put back in and simply copying and pasting. As long as you can't tell the difference, there is nothing more to add to the discussion.

Hey guys, I'm an old stalker fan. I lost ShoC :saddowns: so I only have access to Clear Sky, should I rebuy ShoC, play Clear Sky, or buy CoP?

[QUOTE=Blaberry;29440354]Yes I understand now, you cannot differ between something being taken from something else, reworked then put back in and simply copying and pasting. As long as you can't tell the difference, there is nothing more to add to the discussion.[/QUOTE] Whether the weapon models were changed or not (and to what degree) is irrelevant, they're still not LURK's own creation, and fans praising them without knowing that is still the exact same thing as sim mentioning Complete's incorporation of Rulix AI. And yet, one makes the mod in question 'despicable' (and is 'disrespectful' to the original authors...) and the other isn't a problem? Also, keep in mind that until LURK's 1.1 release we didn't rework the Arsenal weapon models in any way, in LURK 1.0552 they [i]were[/i] "copied and pasted" as you say, except for some miscellaneous config changes.

[QUOTE=rnate;29440441]Hey guys, I'm an old stalker fan. I lost ShoC :saddowns: so I only have access to Clear Sky, should I rebuy ShoC, play Clear Sky, or buy CoP?[/QUOTE] I'd say buy SoC again and then play through all of them. They're totally worth it. Hell, I've probably played through all of them a few dozen times :v:

I will eventually play through the whole series, then. I have never beaten Clear Sky or CoP. I'm sure I can find ShoC for cheap, too.

[QUOTE=MattyDienhoff;29440457]Whether the weapon models were changed or not (and to what degree) is irrelevant, they're still not LURK's own creation, and fans praising them without knowing that is still the exact same thing as sim mentioning Complete's incorporation of Rulix AI. And yet, one makes the mod in question 'despicable' and the other isn't a problem? Also, keep in mind that until LURK's 1.1 release we didn't rework the Arsenal weapon models in any way, in LURK 1.0552 they [I]were[/I] "copied and pasted" as you say, except for some miscellaneous config changes.[/QUOTE] What I am saying that whether or not they were changed [I]does[/I] matter, as it takes actual effort to do so. Weapon balancing also takes effort, something lurk manages very well, in this regard the configuration files taken from arsenal were also changed. Complete on the other hand barely makes any effort to rebalance the weapon mechanics, if it even does so at all(?). What I really started by mentioning was that complete [I]does not[/I] change the AI, rather one component of it does so, which wasn't modified in any way, but simply pasted in. I'd never say that lurk fixes the AI, but if someone asks for a feature list I'd mention it as one of the features. Do note that the actual sentence was "complete fixes the AI", which is not at all true, that was really what I was going on about, before you dragged in lurk and the models/scripts for it, which really doesn't matter. Nor is it related, as Rulix wasn't changed at all, whereas the models, textures and scrips for arsenal weapons in lurk are changed.

It's still a double standard. Blaberry, I don't have a problem with you personally, but the reason I'm fired up about this is because I [i]hate[/i] ([i][b]hate[/b][/i]) it when petty bullshit and politics interfere with modding, and it doesn't get much more petty than the double standard I described up there. I'm certainly not worried about artistpavel's ego, but it's the principle of the thing. In the past I've seen good people get fed up and quit modding because of petty crap (not in the Stalker community, but elsewhere) and it's a terrible waste. That, and I felt it was wrong to chew out simazzarome that way. It's not reasonable to expect him to know which features come from where, most players will never be that familiar with all of the mods out there. Besides, all he said was "Complete changes this", not "artistpavel made this change and he is a true artist!". [editline]26th April 2011[/editline] I specifically mentioned the models, and still that was just one example, another example is Oblivion Lost, before Complete came along that was the mod all the casuals raved about, and most of them were ignorant of the fact that many of the features they liked it in were from other mods like AMK. That doesn't make OL a 'terrible' mod, the only thing that would do that, to my mind, would be if the creator used all of those other bits and pieces and claimed he made them (which is not the case with Complete and probably isn't with OL either).

The reason I even mentioned it is being fed up with all the praise complete receives from every single direction, as I've stated before. Therefore I automatically feel the need to correct people who praises it for reasons that don't hold up. Is that really so strange and alien of a concept to you? To be fed up with something receiving praise it doesn't really deserve?

[QUOTE=Blaberry;29440668]The reason I even mentioned it is being fed up with all the praise complete receives from every single direction[/quote] Not this direction. :v: [QUOTE=Blaberry;29440668]Therefore I automatically feel the need to correct people who praises it for reasons that don't hold up. Is that really so strange and alien of a concept to you? To be fed up with something receiving praise it doesn't really deserve?[/QUOTE] No, it's hype backlash, and like I said I understand even if I don't agree, but I think you guys overdo it. I despise Call of Duty because there are far better first person shooters out there which aren't nearly as popular, but if some casual plays Call of Duty and honestly really enjoys it, I don't try to make them feel bad.

And yes, I'd crack down on people saying OL was revolutionary, too. And actually OL's creator has had some problems with crediting :v: [editline]26th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=MattyDienhoff;29440737] No, it's hype backlash, and like I said I understand even if I don't agree, but I think you guys overdo it. I despise Call of Duty because there are far better first person shooters out there which aren't nearly as popular, but if some casual plays Call of Duty and honestly really enjoys it, I don't try to make them feel bad.[/QUOTE] How about when people tote is as a revolution, you'd still not correct them on how nothing activision did was anything original? Sorry, but in a society that is built upon information, I just automatically feel the need to not let people be wrong and just let it go :patriot:

[QUOTE=Blaberry;29440754]And yes, I'd crack down on people saying OL was revolutionary, too. And actually OL's creator has had some problems with crediting :v: [editline]26th April 2011[/editline] How about when people tote is as a revolution, you'd still not correct them on how nothing activision did was anything original? Sorry, but in a society that is built upon information, I just automatically feel the need to not let people be wrong and just let it go :patriot:[/QUOTE] OL WAS Revolutionary, till we found out he ripped most of his code from AMK. Also, I don't see why you guys are hating on Complete. It's a generally good mod, fixes bugs, adds atmosphere to the game. Plus it's easily merged with AMK for an awesome experience.

[QUOTE=Blaberry;29440754]How about when people tote is as a revolution, you'd still not correct them on how nothing activision did was anything original?[/quote] I would, but 'not revolutionary' /= 'terrible'. Hence the overdoing it part.

I'd agree, but really, complete is mediocre at the very best. [editline]26th April 2011[/editline] And it barely qualifies as a proper mod when compared to the likes of AMK. [editline]26th April 2011[/editline] And this, compared with the press it gets pretty much sums up my feelings about it. Man, this is basically what my summary of complete on my website will consist of :v:

[QUOTE=Blaberry;29439752]I am going to make a page on my website which explains all the mods on the ftp.[/QUOTE] very good. [editline]26th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Blaberry;29440985]I'd agree, but really, complete is mediocre at the very best. [editline]26th April 2011[/editline] And it barely qualifies as a proper mod when compared to the likes of AMK. [editline]26th April 2011[/editline] And this, compared with the press it gets pretty much sums up my feelings about it. Man, this is basically what my summary of complete on my website will consist of :v:[/QUOTE] um... we need an unbiased view of the mods, just a pure, features only affair. Personal opinion is irrelevant, it's a case of facts about each mod, not essays on why you think the mod sucks. not trying to be insulting [b]or[/b] tell you what to do, that is just my opinion on the matter.

Yes, but really, my summary is really all there is to it. I wont flesh out any other mods either, just a small summary on why you might like a particular mod or not. Be honest now, is there a large majority who would like to play vanilla with a few tweaks and fixes and shiny graphics? Because that's not what I think and therefore that's what I'd say about it. The layout I was thinking of is of course a feature list, then a brief summary on how it feels etc like comparing it to vanilla and a download link.

[QUOTE=Blaberry;29441220]Yes, but really, my summary is really all there is to it. I wont flesh out any other mods either, just a small summary on why you might like a particular mod or not. Be honest now, is there a large majority who would like to play vanilla with a few tweaks and fixes and shiny graphics? Because that's not what I think and therefore that's what I'd say about it. The layout I was thinking of is of course a feature list, then a brief summary on how it feels etc like comparing it to vanilla and a download link.[/QUOTE] so for complete, just say that it does various small things to the game, so it is good for people that just want a less buggy, slighty different experience. [editline]26th April 2011[/editline] maybe give the facts, then add your opinion if you [b]REALLY[/b] need to.

Yes, that is pretty much exactly what I had in mind, just information about as many mods as I can write about.

Article on Wired.com about the Chernobly Exclusion Zone today: [url]http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/ff_chernobyl/[/url]

[QUOTE=MattyDienhoff;29440737]Not this direction. :v: No, it's hype backlash, and like I said I understand even if I don't agree, but I think you guys overdo it. I despise Call of Duty because there are far better first person shooters out there which aren't nearly as popular, but if some casual plays Call of Duty and honestly really enjoys it, I don't try to make them feel bad.[/QUOTE] You've brought up many good points. You are right about the hype-backlash. The mod itself, in my mind, dwells in some no-mans land. For the people who want to play a "Vanilla 2.0" it changes the game too much, sometimes making it easier. For those who want to play an extremely feature-heavy mod, it doesn't seem to be that either. [editline]26th April 2011[/editline] Also, as much as I don't like COD, I still think the gameplay is smooth as fuck.

[QUOTE=Blaberry;29441220] Be honest now, is there a large majority who would like to play vanilla with a few tweaks and fixes and shiny graphics? Because that's not what I think and therefore that's what I'd say about it. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SomeFaggot;29442724]You've brought up many good points. You are right about the hype-backlash. The mod itself, in my mind, dwells in some no-mans land. For the people who want to play a "Vanilla 2.0" it changes the game too much, sometimes making it easier. For those who want to play an extremely feature-heavy mod, it doesn't seem to be that either. [/QUOTE] This is basically what I'm pointing to [editline]26th April 2011[/editline] Interesting, in the Old Good STALKER Evolution thread on the GSC forums, there is a tweak that changes the grass draw distance, from what I can make of it.

Is it DLL based?

No, .db based :v:

Can't you open it and see what's inside with that DB unpacker?

Actually, it's a modification to another database package, and downloading that package involves the kind of procedure that made me host mods myself. [editline]26th April 2011[/editline] ie. it involves Russian filehosters that pepper your files with viruses. Yes I am dead serious.

Heh, I saw some Chernobyl documentary a few minuets ago. They featured some partes from Stalker, and interviewed the developers. You could even see a model that was made for Stalker 2 And the whole thing was called "Der Schatten von Chernobyl" which means "The Shadow of Chernobyl" :v:

I am now the proud owner of two 21.5 inch screens :D

What kind of fucked up resolution do you get on those?

1920x1080?

well he turns them vertically and places them on top of each other so something like 2160x3840

[QUOTE=Blaberry;29444231]I am now the proud owner of two 21.5 inch screens :D[/QUOTE] I have a 24" screen and a 19", I just wish the 24" would have better colors and stuff.