Stalker is a buggy pos

R

rcf1987

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
3,759
IF I play on on dynamic objects even with low I still get lag and choppiness waste of money until the bugs get worked out.
 
It plays fine on my computer on medium settings, so perhaps your computer is just a buggy pos?
 
This game needs muscle. You have a system that barely meets requirements, so its no wonder it wont run to your satisfaction.

I wouldnt critisize a game as "buggy" when my system just cant keep up.

You can read my signature. I noticed a small lag when there's alot of action. The game has a large signature and will require a good bit of heft to run it correctly. ie: a dual core CPU and more RAM than you've got, for starters.

So far I like this game. Yes it has some eccentric function that is so far driving me crazy, but I like it and it runs nicely on my computer.
I am able to run the game full on at 1920x1200, but I expect to given my investment.
 
Im having no problems with it, it benefits having a dual-core CPU at the least, and a good graphics card.
 
Check da sig..Runs fine for me although Im not sure it utilizing DC..
 
he's probably right that it more than likely will be optimized in the times to come with patches and such but its sad to hear that it runs that slow on those specs
 
STALKER is very buggy, although my main issue is the huge memory leak.

In addition, the fact that registration is not supported in Canada, is quite the load of BS.
 
is the OP running vista? numerous reviews i've seen have cited major Vista-related issues.
 
Anyone else having a problem using quickload? When I hit F7 to quickload, nothing happens despite having a quicksave!
 
I played the game for about 5 hours last night and I had only three technical glitches:

Much, but not nearly all, of the time time grass and trees "vibrated" instead of swaying with the wind.
Auto-save only kicked in once after clearing the first town even though I cleared the town 4 times before that (I kept having to redo it because I kept forgetting to save and then I would die and have to restart.)
ONE time the game paused for a half-second for no apparent reason whatsoever.

Outside of that the game looked perfect, sounded perfect, and worked perfect the entire time.

BTW, this was while running the game at 1920x1200 with all in game settings maxed and the frame rate never dropped below 40fps, and was almost always at 60-65fps.

So for me the game is only a "tad" buggy. It definitely needs some work still, but I would rather be playing it with minor issues that will hopefully be patched soon than wait another 6 months to play it at all.
 
I got the vibrating grass a few times, very weird

As for the pause, I experienced that as well, but I attributed it to loading scenery when entering a new area
 
Try getting a REAL graphics card. The 7600gt is old and moldy dude. Don't blame the game because you are reluctant to purchase new hardware
 
MrFace said:
Try getting a REAL graphics card. The 7600gt is old and moldy dude. Don't blame the game because you are reluctant to purchase new hardware
Click to expand...

Im not sure if I would say a graphics card that is at most a year old is 'old and moldy'. Maybe if he was running a 6600GT, even then I wouldnt call it that.

The 7600GT is a decent mid range graphics card still.
 
arentol said:
I played the game for about 5 hours last night and I had only three technical glitches:

Much, but not nearly all, of the time time grass and trees "vibrated" instead of swaying with the wind.
Auto-save only kicked in once after clearing the first town even though I cleared the town 4 times before that (I kept having to redo it because I kept forgetting to save and then I would die and have to restart.)
ONE time the game paused for a half-second for no apparent reason whatsoever.

Outside of that the game looked perfect, sounded perfect, and worked perfect the entire time.

BTW, this was while running the game at 1920x1200 with all in game settings maxed and the frame rate never dropped below 40fps, and was almost always at 60-65fps.

So for me the game is only a "tad" buggy. It definitely needs some work still, but I would rather be playing it with minor issues that will hopefully be patched soon than wait another 6 months to play it at all.
Click to expand...

Nice. :)

One small nit-pick about your sig. Should be 8800. :)
 
Standpoint said:
Im not sure if I would say a graphics card that is at most a year old is 'old and moldy'. Maybe if he was running a 6600GT, even then I wouldnt call it that.

The 7600GT is a decent mid range graphics card still.
Click to expand...

Mid-range of last generation. Old and moldy this generation :D
 
Hmm, not cool.. the game ran fine for me (pre-beta) on the specs below running 1280x1024x32 (low AA/AF settings)

I want to go buy it right now since I've been hearing hype about this game for a few years now, but now I am second guessing since people with computers a little bit better than mine are having performance issues. :confused:

Anyone with an 805 (or similar) play yet? I haven't found one person in any of the stalker posts who even has a Pentium D, let alone a Pentium D 805.
 
I'm sick and tired about people complaining about a game when they don't have the system to run it. :mad:

I'm also sick and tired of game developers being slandered for Microsoft's shortcomings in the OS dept.

I have heard of this game running slow and its no worse than FEAR.

I have heard of Vista problems, but its actually coded for Windows XP.

Place the blame properly folks, its not quite perfect, but a damn fine game, up there with system shock 2, which also had its quirks.
 
Ive been running mine in win XP pro, with specs in sig, high graphics, maxed everything, maxed AF, mid AA, 1152x864 running between 50 and 90 fps, but it will lag for little or no reason, and if I enable dynamic lighting even dropping my settings to the floor doesn't get me above single digit FPS. One problem I had was the game would quit out after 10 seconds unless I turned off EAX which is a bummer. Other then that I haven't had any major problems, but alot of little ones.

For example, at random times with say the AK74 if I look down the sights and shoot directly at someone, the muzzle flash will look hella pixalated. I wish they would patch it so HDR isn't 100% unusable for anything less then OCd DC x6800 and 2 8800GTX's oc'd.
 
before everyone continues to jump down his throat about requirements.

1:The game has been reported to be very buggy.
2: The game was supposed to come out 2 years ago. A x800 and 6800 were supposed to be good.
 
AdamNesvick said:
I'm sick and tired about people complaining about a game when they don't have the system to run it. :mad:

I'm also sick and tired of game developers being slandered for Microsoft's shortcomings in the OS dept.

I have heard of this game running slow and its no worse than FEAR.

I have heard of Vista problems, but its actually coded for Windows XP.

Place the blame properly folks, its not quite perfect, but a damn fine game, up there with system shock 2, which also had its quirks.
Click to expand...

http://www.gpstore.co.nz/News/Archive/4458.html

his system is well within system requirements (Stalker home page doesn't list minimum)
 
I played it last night on my AMD XP3200 with 1 gig of ram and a 6800 under the Vista RTM they gave out at the "New Launch Day" - It runs ok.. Not great, but OK, I've got to turn it down to static lighting and low settings - for some reason it looks like you can't change the shadows setting directly? It would probably run faster under XP or 2k... but I don't have an XP license and CnC3 isn't supporting 2k.

Your 805 should play it ok with a decent video card.

Still an interesting game...
 
Netrat33 said:
before everyone continues to jump down his throat about requirements.

1:The game has been reported to be very buggy.
2: The game was supposed to come out 2 years ago. A x800 and 6800 were supposed to be good.
Click to expand...

Go back and look at what has been done to this game over the last two years.
Do you honestly think the game developers did nothing to improve graphics or game performance in two years????

If what you say is true, why do they recommend dual core CPUs and 8800 family graphics cards.

The world did not pass this game by.

But yes, there are some bugs, but not to the extent that you can run the game as it was intended on weak equipment. Old components cannot keep up. I too have a backup machine with an e6300, 2 GB of value RAM and a 7600 GT KO and I would not expect it to keep up in this game at all unless I played at very low resolution and minimal effects.

This is not Painkiller.
 
magoo said:
If what you say is true, why do they recommend dual core CPUs and 8800 family graphics cards.
Click to expand...

Even the recommended, not minimum requirements on the game box, do not list 8800 graphics cards. I believe the recommended is a 7800.

Edit : it was 7800 not 7900

Im guessing most peoples poor performance, has to do with the huge memory leak.
 
magoo said:
Go back and look at what has been done to this game over the last two years.
Do you honestly think the game developers did nothing to improve graphics or game performance in two years????

If what you say is true, why do they recommend dual core CPUs and 8800 family graphics cards.

The world did not pass this game by.

But yes, there are some bugs, but not to the extent that you can run the game as it was intended on weak equipment. Old components cannot keep up. I too have a backup machine with an e6300, 2 GB of value RAM and a 7600 GT KO and I would not expect it to keep up in this game at all unless I played at very low resolution and minimal effects.

This is not Painkiller.
Click to expand...

Uh actually ya. I don't notice that much different. Bad programming is bad programming.
 
I bet my duel old and moldy 7600gt's will run it just fine, 7600 still rock the house if overclocked and in SLI mode.
 
FREE "VALUE SHIPPING" @ EBGAMES - Coupon Code = "SAVER" capitalized w/o the quotes.


Here's the requirements by the way...

Required
Operating System: Microsoft® Windows® XP (Service Pack 2)/Microsoft® Windows® 2000 SP4
Processor: Intel Pentium 4 2 Ghz/AMD XP 2200+
Video Card: 128 MB DirectX® 9c compatible card/ nVIDIA® GeForce™ 5700/ATI Radeon® 9600
Disk Space: 10 GB available hard drive space
Sound Card: DirectX® 9 compatible sound card
RAM: 512 MB RAM
DirectX: DirectX 9.0

Recommended
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E6400/AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+
RAM: 1 GB RAM or better
Video Card: 256 MB DirectX® 9c compatible card/ nVIDIA® GeForce™ 7900/ ATI Radeon® X1850
 
Standpoint said:
Im not sure if I would say a graphics card that is at most a year old is 'old and moldy'. Maybe if he was running a 6600GT, even then I wouldnt call it that.

The 7600GT is a decent mid range graphics card still.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean he's going to be able to turn the settings all the way up. It's not top of the line by any means. I hate it when people get on forums and complain their game running slow, when they have slow hardware. Duh! :rolleyes:
 
The read me text, which I dont have access to right now, divides the requirements into three parts.
minimum,recommended and high (if I recall correctly)
7800/7900 was in the recommended and 8800 or R600 was in the high system category,along with dual core CPUs. So if the developer "recommends" a 7800/7900 series card, I dont think you can expect a 7600 to do very well. I think we all know that recommendations are less than honest.

I'm not trying to put anybody down, but I dont think there is anyone here that would expect the 7600 to run this game as well as a 7900 or 8800 video card. You cannot be expecting an aging system to run a new game (buggy/optimized or not) on high settings.

Look around, most people report some bugs....the game aint perfect, but most are running it fine and not calling it a POS.

And yes, I expect 7600 GT KOs in SLI would run this game pretty well.:D
 
I think a lot of the overhead is that all of the shadows are being calculated in real time, there are no prerendered ones.
 
Runs okay for me, although some of the options don't seem to actually work. Still, I'm on XP and my system's pretty much pegged out.
Anyone know how to map a mouse-wheel to switch weapons? Mine simply won't register. It works fine as a zoom, but that's it.
 
AdamNesvick said:
I'm sick and tired about people complaining about a game when they don't have the system to run it. :mad:

I'm also sick and tired of game developers being slandered for Microsoft's shortcomings in the OS dept.

I have heard of this game running slow and its no worse than FEAR.

I have heard of Vista problems, but its actually coded for Windows XP.

Place the blame properly folks, its not quite perfect, but a damn fine game, up there with system shock 2, which also had its quirks.
Click to expand...

More importantly I'm sick of people with absurdly new / expensive systems that claim to have no problems at all in running the latest games.. no shit sherlock, of course it's going to run great.

Secondly it runs ALOT worse than FEAR does. FEAR runs quite quickly for me and this game is more like a slideshow. I'm on a 3200+ A64 with a 7800gs and 2 gigs of ram. This game should run OK for me at medium to low settings. I tried running it at 1024x768 at low detail and it's still a freaking slideshow. Not worth your money and yes I'm on Vista.
 
I am running XP and its not that I cant run the game at high settings its that even on low settings it runs bad.
 
The MAIN thing that helped the game run smooth for me was going into advanced and taking textures down to about the halfway mark. Before that it was all the way to the right and I was getting quite a bit of stuttering.
 
Draax said:
STALKER is very buggy, although my main issue is the huge memory leak.

In addition, the fact that registration is not supported in Canada, is quite the load of BS.
Click to expand...

Go to command console ( ` ) and type Flush. Not sure what memory leak you're describing anyway, this game seems to handle memory packages pretty well. I dropped full screen support yesterday to windowed mode @ 800x600 on a 1920x1200 resolution and the memory scaled accordingly.

jester1176 said:
is the OP running vista? numerous reviews i've seen have cited major Vista-related issues.
Click to expand...

I'm playing, as are many others, on Vista. There are issues with the game, but it seems most of the same issues can/have occurred on both XP/Vista. There are, however, a few quirks (see below) for Vista that XP might noit have, but after a 5 year development, I didn't really expect this to be optimized for Vista until the first or subsequent patches.

spicey said:
Anyone else having a problem using quickload? When I hit F7 to quickload, nothing happens despite having a quicksave!
Click to expand...

There are reported bugs/crashes from Quick Save and Quick load, especially it seems with Vista (see above). Unsure of when/if they plan to fix that, but I'd stick to the menu for now.

hmz said:
I'm under Vista and this game doesn't work. Disappointed.
Click to expand...

I'm under Vista Ultimat x64 and this game works. Exciting!

Stereophile said:
Everyone reports it runs much smoother on XP. Vista is what's not worth the money at this point.
Click to expand...

What I'm hearing, from the vocal and excited who post, are that dual core comps, with 2 gigs of RAM and a Gfx card with more than 256mb memory are smoother. I've heard just as many complain about issues with 88' series Nvidia cards on XP as the run of the mill Vista complaint.
 
dot_Zen said:
What I'm hearing, from the vocal and excited who post, are that dual core comps, with 2 gigs of RAM and a Gfx card with more than 256mb memory are smoother. I've heard just as many complain about issues with 88' series Nvidia cards on XP as the run of the mill Vista complaint.
Click to expand...


Smoother than what ? A P4 3.0 with a 7600GT ?

You're conflating the issues. I'm talking about the same computer running STALKER on XP vs Vista. The few people I've seen post on various forums who tried it on both OSs, comment it runs much smoother in XP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top