>>713614440
>can i please PLEASE for the love of god get an actual idea on how the game is by people who actually play videogames instead of ragebaiting people?
You very much the most wrong place possible for that kind of response.
>what does stalker 2 do good?
Atmosphere, environments, and surprisingly (considering their track record from the original games), some of the story stuff. Like, there are actually genuinely interesting characters and story beats in the game, some downright great. Though much like the originals, it also fucks things up from time to time.
>what does it do bad?
A LOT of things, to be honest. Speaking as someone who genuinely really liked the game. Stalker 2 is actually surprisingly faithful to the originals, most heavily because it repeats near every single mistake that the originals made.
The poor technical side of things is the most obvious issue. Awful performance, bugged out quests, A.I. anomalies etc... the game is litered with that shit.
Also balance. The game is very poorly balanced, or at least it was last time I've played. Shit like awful economy, completely borked combat values (enemies not having range-penalties on your weapon, thus capable of literally sniping you with light submachine guns and even shotguns from so far away that they are barely visible, when you can't even hit them, much less hurt them, with the same weapons, or the game's locational damage being so bad and penalizing troso-shots so severely, people genuinely though the hit detection wasn't working).
It also has a problem with repetition. Stalker works best as a semi-linear game, and the sheer size of the map and slow cumbersome commute makes Stalker 2's atmosphere vane long before the story is over, the sense of wonder turns into routine faster than it should.
With all that said: it is still quite fascinating, and a lot of the issues can be fixed by mods. The game's atmosphere is still stellar, and the gameplay with mods is fine too.
