Summary
Flawed as a genre hybrid; great as an experience
The Good
The recent releases of
Pathologic and
The Witcher proved that some developers from Eastern Europe had enough creative power to be able to compete with their colleagues from the West and the Far East, and even to surpass them in certain aspects. "Stalker" (please, don't make me type all those dots...) is yet another proof of this creative power.
There is really a lot to like about "Stalker"; the moment you fire up the game you feel that you are invited to something special. The "
Fallout meets
Oblivion" idea is certainly one that can make a dedicated gamer drool. Even though "Stalker" is far from being a hybrid of those two games, it certainly takes steps into the right direction.
The first thing you notice when you being to play "Stalker" is the exceptionally strong personality of its world. It's not that "Stalker" is particularly atmospheric or has really outstanding graphics; the effect is achieved by following a certain style in the design, which is instantly recognizable and which is perhaps the game's most valuable asset.
This style immediately betrays the post-Soviet origin of "Stalker"; in fact, it is the only game I've ever played that uses absolutely authentic Soviet style. The rusty vehicles, the architecture of the buildings, many objects, even the nature itself - everything reminded me of Soviet Union, where I was born and spent the first ten years of my life. Certain things evoked a strange kind of nostalgia in me. I remember an abandoned train in the Garbage area. It looks exactly like the trains that were used on suburb railways in Soviet Union (and are still used in ex-Soviet countries, at least in some of them). This nearly photorealistic representation of a rarely used style is attractive in a bizarre way.
Those Soviet reminiscences are mixed with sci-fi elements: radioactivity everywhere, weird "anomalies", mutants, etc., resulting in a decidedly original and quite unforgettable style. "Stalker" is therefore one of those games you'd want to play just in order to feel its unique vibe.
Even if "Stalker" were an ordinary FPS, it would be interesting to play because of this setting. But "Stalker" tries to expand the boundaries of the genre - not always in a convincing way, but still with plenty of efficient results.
"Stalker" is in a certain sense the antipode of
Half-Life: the latter is absolutely linear and relies on set-pieces, while the former doesn't have any set-pieces at all and is also remarkably open-ended for a shooter. In this sense, "Stalker" surpasses
Deus Ex, the ultimate FPS/RPG hybrid. "Deus Ex" had more role-playing elements than "Stalker", they were more coherent and better implemented; but its story progression was entirely linear, just like in any other FPS. The fact you could switch sides and find different ways within a level didn't change the overall necessity to do the levels in a pre-established succession.
"Stalker", on the other hand, allows you to do whatever you want and generally go wherever you want. Its game world is seamless, not level-based, just like in an open-ended RPG. You can just walk around and explore the game world for hours, without undertaking any missions. You can do main storyline missions in different order. You can ignore them and do some side missions first. In fact, even the story missions are structured in such a way that some of them are not required to finish the game. Even though the "Kill Strelok" mission is your "main quest", it can be easily disintegrated during the gameplay, you can even ignore it entirely and still be able to complete the game! Of course, the "true" ending can be reached only if you pursue this mission, and without doing it, the story of the game won't make much sense; but it's up to the player to decide how to handle this.
This freedom, coupled with an interesting, unusual world to explore, is easily the game's strongest point. "Stalker" is a game in which exploration is more important than following a story. Of course, this story does exist, and is in fact quite good if you bother to uncover it: there is even a very cool plot twist in the middle, and the final confrontation is fittingly majestic and is very heavy on story development. But, much like
Elder Scrolls games, the meaning of "Stalker" is "bathing" in its game world, walking around, doing stuff on your own, being drawn into the game world, and forgetting the reality around you.
There are plenty of cool things in "Stalker". There is a full day/night cycle, just like in RPGs. The many NPCs who populate the Zone belong to different groups that constantly fight each other. It is possible for the player to join two of those groups, the ones that have a distinct ethical idea behind their actions. It is theoretically possible just to kill everyone, except the very few givers of pivotal missions that will allow the player to access new areas. There is a huge amount of missions - I could only wish their quality would match their quantity. There are real hunger and stamina parameters; you can't run forever, like in most other games, and you'll also need to eat from time to time. There are artifacts you can hunt for, scattered around the game world, usually near dangerous places called "anomalies", some of which can instantly kill you if you are not careful. Those artifacts increase some of your parameters and decrease others; by cleverly combining them, you'll be able to customize your character to a certain degree. There is also weapon degradation, which is much more realistic and by far less frustrating than the one used in
System Shock 2.
The combat system is surprisingly realistic, coming close to simulation-style shooters. The AI is highly advanced; I never saw enemies do stupid things that are typically exploited in some other FPSs. Killing enemies require real skill. Even on the easiest difficulty level, you can get yourself killed in a matter of seconds. I was never interested in realistic shooters, and I found "Stalker" very hard; but whenever I wasn't frustrated, I had great moments with this realism. There always seem to be different ways out of tough situations. The sneaking system works quite well, and if you are patient enough, you can eliminate enemies without being noticed. Also, since the game world is so large, in many parts you can just run away if you feel the battle is too hard. I remember how I managed to infiltrate a military base and to steal important documents, only to find soldiers guarding every possible exit. All attempts to confront them resulted in quick death. I already decided to reload a previously saved game and ran up to the roof in order to commit spectacular suicide. But then I discovered a ladder leading down from the roof; overjoyed, I ran over to it, and before the soldiers could realize what was happening, I was running like mad to cover, and from there to the gate and to freedom, with deafening gunshots echoing in my head.
That's how "Stalker" works: you experience it in different ways. It is highly probable that the story I just shared here never happened to you; you might have tackled this mission in a totally different way, or maybe not tackled it at all.
The Bad
Just as I said in my review of
Oblivion, the more ambitious a game is, the easier it is to notice its flaws. "Stalker" is no exception: it is a title that promises a lot, therefore all its flaws become more visible, as if they were viewed with a magnifying lens. Unfortunately, there are quite a few of them. Even though "Stalker" still manages to draw the player in thanks to its very premise and its unique vibe, it is ultimately unsatisfying as a FPS/RPG hybrid it was supposed to be.
It's not that the two genres don't work well together. The examples of
System Shock 2 and especially
Deus Ex showed that such games can be done, and can be done really well. But while "Stalker" goes even further in certain aspects (side missions and large world), it neglects some key elements of both genres.
For example, it totally lacks the suspense, which is so essential for an FPS. Of course, it is extremely hard to maintain suspense when your goal is to have an open-ended world and non-obligatory missions. Maybe it was just too ambitious from the part of the developers to think of both those goals. But the fact is that the FPS gameplay in "Stalker", with all its realism, doesn't have the necessary urgency. I'm not demanding a
Half-Life 2 kind of ride here, but running around and having to shoot annoying enemies, who all look and act alike no matter to what fraction they belong, gets repetitive more quickly than you would imagine. The problem is that the enemies in "Stalker" were most probably conceived as experience-giving random RPG foes; but since there is no experience system of any sort, it is just pointless to wander around and to shoot, without being treated to cleverly designed levels with interesting set-pieces and suspenseful progression.
Unfortunately, most of the game is dedicated to just that. The dialogues with the NPCs are uninteresting and repetitive; the NPCs themselves have little personality and are for the most part simply useless. At least in
Morrowind, which had perhaps equally uninteresting NPCs, there was much more background information and more things to find (like for example books). In "Stalker", everything you can find is somehow combat-related, which makes the already shallow RPG angle even shallower. The necessity of going through huge locations in order to advance the story somehow, to talk to dull characters, and to fight hordes of tough enemies without being properly rewarded puts the player's motivation in question. Speaking of tough enemies, the game is brutally hard; while this does add a lot to the realism, I really don't understand why they didn't add an easier difficulty level. What they call "Novice" (the easiest difficulty) is in reality a "medium" difficulty level of an average FPS.
The side missions are boring to the extreme; after the initial joy of having them I quickly understood that they were all going to be of the same: kill some guys, bring some items, come back for the reward. I'm not sure it's entirely fair to criticize "Stalker" for that - after all, other FPSs don't have any side missions at all; but that just brings me back to what I said above - the higher the expectations, the bigger the disappointment. It's great to have side missions, but why make them so dull? Even the side quests of "Morrowind" were more interesting! In fact, the two games have a lot of common. They are great to play from time to time, but you won't be compelled to complete them.
The result of all that is the fact that "Stalker" fails to become really addictive. The depressingly realistic shooter routine, the lack of interesting characters, the dull side missions, the absence of motivation - one of those factors will eventually make you put the game aside sooner than it should have been. And then, eventually, to come back and to continue playing it, for the sake of its wonderful atmospheric world and its strong personality.
The Bottom Line
"Stalker" is a very ambitious game. Like in other similar cases, it delivered less than it had initially promised, leading to unnecessary disappointment. Perhaps it can be best summed up with "it could have been so much more". It is flawed, and it's not even always fun to play; but it is a commendable effort, and a landmark experiment. Its personality and the many creative touches the developers have granted it make it a one of a kind experience - certainly one you wouldn't like to miss.
