Well, Sup Forums? Which one is better?
I prefer stalker because of atmosphere, setting, and general gameplay, as weapons don't magically get stronger just because you have higher stats you grinded or some shit. Fuck that shit. Why do my weapons weapons have to be garbage against humans just because I haven't picked perks/levelled them? A gun should kill, not tickle.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtu.be
youtu.be
twitter.com
>RPG with guns vs FPS with RPG elements
Apples to Oranges
>food analogy
Well, fonv is pretty shit so why even compare?
it's not that bad
3 on the other hand...
FNV, by far. I love STALKER but it can't compare to the scope of FNV.
Totally unrelated but you just reminded me of one of my favorite aspects of the old Phantasy Star games. Swords and other melee weapons scale to your stats but guns always do a fixed amount of damage no matter what. I always liked that.
Holy shit, STALKER without question.
side note, it amazes me how fucking cunning and shitty the AI is at the same time. They have snuck behind me and flanked my ass so many times it was like I was playing against real people.
Love them both but I'd say STALKER. What they managed to do with that setting was really unique and impressive.
Also in a less lofty sense, the vast majority of what you're doing in both games is shooting guns, and STALKER is so much better at that.
I like both and they're uncomparable but if I had to choose, FNV since I can't play as a revolver-wielding sharpshooter in SoC.
>post apocalyptic fps with rpg elements with a hint of realism vs cowboys vs romans post post apocalyptic edition
STALKER wins without a doubt
This is even a question?
STALKER all the way
But you could with mods.
Was it possible to gimp your character in New Vegas by levelling certain skills later or doing certain actions in game?
I recall there was a skill that gave you an extra skill point from reading books, which makes it seem like if you had already read some books and got it later, you would have a permenantely gimped character.
Even if it didn't do that, if you had unlocked that perk, you would have a perk that would have become literally useless once you reached max level, thereby wasting points.
I remember doing that shit in one game, where one of the skills was to level up faster, but you couldn't level every skill, so that by the time to got to as high as you could, that skill was effectively wasted points.
Dead Island I believe it was.
STALKER is an ancient Sup Forums meme that I'm glad finally died. I remember years ago I was rused into pay $5 for SoC and it was a boring, buggy piece of shit. Conversely, NV Ultimate Edition for under $10 is one of the best per-dollar values you can get in video games.
this
You can't really compare them though. Stalker has better gun mechanics and AI but NV has a lot of options beyond GUNS.
I prefer New Vegas because of atmosphere, setting and general gameplay. But this guy: is correct.
These threads never seem to gather any traction, though.
>I recall there was a skill that gave you an extra skill point from reading books
The main purpose of this skill is making skill boosting magazines bonus increase from 10 to 20 points, which is pretty damn great. If you don't remember, those magazines are really common but their bonus only lasts for a minute (without another perk that makes it last 3). Can help you pass a hard skill check, or craft an item or a batch of items you normally won't be able to.
You could probably go out of your way to make a bad character, but the game gave you enough skill points to fix anything. Compared to Fallout 3, your base skill point gain is higher and intelligence has less of an effect. You can and will have a lower skill point total than someone who min-maxed, but it's not that big of a difference.
For example, that extra skill point from books is counter-balanced by the rarity of books. If you collected every book in the game only after getting that perk, that'd be like five extra points per skill. Which is significant, but not that significant. You can max out every skill just by leveling.
>as weapons don't magically get stronger just because you have higher stats
But that doesn't happen, only perks and weapon degradation determine the damage, skill determines handling and accuracy, isn't the damage related to stats in F3?
literally incomparable
both are good, GOAT with mods
It happens, but it's not overwhelmingly important. I know it because I distinctly recall Sawyer defending it as "your character knows better how to hit vital spots" or something like that.
If you want to talk about magic, anyway, how about low-tier firearms in Stalker having 90 degree cones of fire, or automatic weapons not dealing their full damage after the first hit?
...
they're both top 5 PC GOTYAY. I can't decide. Stalker would be better if the last 4 hours weren't so shit gameplay wise
Call of Pripyat was great though.
>they're both top 5 PC GOTYAY
lol no
What's the last 4 hours? Post-Brain Scorcher?
I meant SoC. for some reason I only thought of SoC
nah I mean like starting from the assault on the powerplant. that could have been cool but ended up as a trial and error on where to stand to not get hit by rpgs. I doubt anyone could have made it in their first try even if they were a savant yea i know you did anonymous stranger on the weavery-board. I guess it felt acceptable until all the gameplay after you've talked to the brainypeople in the tanks. it took me like 1-2 hours to get out of the powerplant and I just wanted to know how the story ended. It was just an annoying grind, the game had had its climax
Apples>oranges
Fight me.
Depends on the apple
^knows whats up
Granny smith>oranges>red apples
STALKER is as fun as you make it, pleb.
...
Were enemies in NV as bulletspongey as they were in 3?
I remember using a minigun in 3 and it was complete trash and took dozens of bullets to kill human enemies, and seconds of sustained fire to kill armoured enemies and mutants.
It's a fucking minigun. It should shred.
Fully modded minigun is my favorite gun in NV. It shreds, and it's actually pretty accurate if you meet the STR and skill requirements.
My absolute nigga.
My complete nigga.
My infinite nigga.
My outright nigga.
My pure nigga.
My sheer nigga.
My Unadulterated nigga.
My unconditional nigga.
My Utter nigga.
My total nigga.
My through nigga.
I did it but I think it was more "being so retarded you don't know what you're doing"
I didnt realise I was even in the power plant until I hit the wish granter and got an ending
Stalker, by far
as much as i like fallout, stalker kicks FoNV ass by far, and the reason I prefer Fo4 is because it is stalker 1.5 in some way.
And not, Fo4 doesn't offer much RPG, that's the reason why.
>Apples to Oranges
>like you eat fruits
Go chew on your doritos.
New vegas is better because of caravan
STALKER, by far.
It is pretty much what FO3-4 tried to achieve, but failed.
you're the meme, and Stalker love still reigns supreme.
Nobody who actually likes FNV cares about what 3 or 4 tried to achieve. Bethesda doesn't understand Fallout setting or Fallout style of RPGs.
I can't argue with this logic .
I submit.
>I prefer Fo4 is because it is stalker 1.5 in some way.
Damn you stupid
Doritos are not chewy
Are there any games similar to STALKER and Fallout, but that lean more towards the STALKER side?
I like these styles of games, but I hate having to level up and distribute skill points and play for a long time just so that my weapons can be more effective for no good reason what so ever.
STALKER was pretty good about this but even it had that stupid weapon upgrading shit from impossible to find toolkits, and many weapons were objectively better than others, which I dislike.
>and many weapons were objectively better than others
Just like in real life, bro.
It's a game. I like having a wide variety of weapons that have clear upsides and downsides in every situation, otherwise there's no reason to use 80% of the weapons in a game because a better version exists and all that variety means fucking nothing.
first post best post.
How can you compare the two?
They both:
Had heavy story elements
Had RPG elements
Had FPS elements
Emphasized survival in mods
But everything else about them was very different.
I personally liked the STALKER series more but that's an opinion. I liked it because it was more punishing and the chance of death was much higher.
Far Cry-series maybe?
>Fo4 is because it is stalker 1.5 in some way.
You tried Metro?
Linear but it definitely has the same feeling as STALKER, given they're both vaguely based on the same source material.
Anyone else here didn't like Vegas at all? I uninstalled when i reached The Strip and saw that there were like 5 buildings to enter in whats supposed to be the main area of the game
I prefer oranges personally.
I also prefer STALKER.
Apples and New Vegas are both pretty great though, and I probably play/eat them more often.
>I like having a wide variety of weapons that have clear upsides and downsides in every situation
You probably should play something close to Doom or Serious Sam then.
Tried it, but it's not what I'm looking for. I do want an open world sort of game.
Besides, that game pissed me right the fuck off, as I was giving money to every begger I saw, thinking that's how you would get a good ending or something, until after like, 2 hours, I was circling an area, and the same begger that asked for bullets before asked me again, a minute or two after I had given him one.
The knowledge that I had given away so much valuable money for no reason made me hate the game. Not that it matters, like I said, isn't what I'm looking for anyway. I want something with lots of options and ways to approach things.
I did enjoy Far Cry 2, not that I would call it all that similar, but in a few ways it is. Good answer, but I've had my fair share of it already.
me, shit was boring but I slogged through it
>I hate stalker because it's buggy
>but I love new vegas
how retarded can one person be?
>I like having a wide variety of weapons that have clear upsides and downsides in every situation, otherwise there's no reason to use 80% of the weapons in a game because a better version exists and all that variety means fucking nothing.
You don't get it user, game wasn't made with that in mind.
Exploration wise Stalker is better, story wise NV is better. They are different games.
Played em both. Pretty different experiences, but something in between might be good. Wasn't that big on serious sam honestly. Found it annoying how enemies would spawn from nowhere, hitscan attacks didn't fit in, and some areas had so many fucking enemies it was impossible to avoid getting hit, especially if you used too much ammo of another weapon type before. It felt like a trial and error game to me.
I like them both and think NV and all the stalker games are fantastic.
I never said it was. My original point was for something LIKE stalker and fallout, not exactly the same.
I do see it as somewhat of a flaw that could probably be changed in a better way without making most shit useless, but I'm no game designer.
gun porn is it's own use
this.
Stalker can go suck a dick
buggy russian piece of shit
As opposed to NV
Buggy Canadian piece of shit
Obsidian is located in the OCR (Old California Republic).
Fallout 4 wasn't that bad at all