I have been very amiss of my Milgeek blog duties more than usual lately; this is in part because of my total immersion in two computer games which I recently purchased – STALKER: Clear Sky and Fallout 3. Ironically, on the surface, both games are very similar in theme and features as they are generally what you could call post-apocalyptic science-fiction/sci-fi horror survivalist first person shooters.

What is interesting about these games is that one was created by a Russian development team and the other an American team, and the main differences in the games is that they are highly influenced by the culture and history of either of these two nations. Briefly, STALKER is a gritty and atmospheric tale of the post-Chernobyl zone crafted in a relatively realistic (bearing in mind the sci-fi horror theme) manner, while Fallout is a ‘Mad Max’-esque grand opera of a game, highly stylised with a retro 50s flavour (think of a ‘Pleasantville’ after the A-bomb and you’ll get the idea).

Which is the better game?

That’s a hard one. It’s rather like saying which movie is better; ‘Mad Max’ or ‘Mad Max 2’ – both have their fans, although the first movie – being a lower budget flick, has a rawness to it that a lot of people seem to prefer. This is how it is with me and STALKER: Clear Sky. I find the rawness and edginess and horror aspect a lot more appealing, but I can see how a lot will find the slick ‘Hollywood’ nature of Fallout 3 preferable.

Above: One of the most hyped features of Fallout 3 has been it's 'new' VATS combat system. Basically, in the heat of battle, VATS allows you to pause the action and focus on your target's most vunerable points. From there VATS enters a third-person slow motion mini-movie of the resultant combat action - the results can be quite gory! Click here to see a larger screen shot of: | VATS Screen | Slo-mo combat action | Results of the action |

STALKER: Clear Sky did get itself a bit of a bad rap initially, and a flurry of patches had to be quickly published. Meanwhile, Fallout 3 seems to have been a lot better orchestrated in this respect – although I have found a couple of glitches that have gotten me stuck.

All in all, I don’t think there is a knat’s hair between the two games in terms of quality and entertainment, but let me put it this way (and excuse the resort to movie metaphors again)...

If you are the type of person who enjoyed ‘Nightwatch’ in the original Russian (Ночной дозор, Nochnoy dozor, 2004) with subtitles, then you are probably the sort of person who will appreciate the edgy style of S:CS. If on the other hand, you are the sort of person who would rather wait for Hollywood to make a bigger budget version of a foreign film – as it did with ‘Daywatch’ (2008) – then Fallout 3 will be the game for you.

So, they are similar – but what’s different?

Scale and attention to detail in the level of ‘interactivity’ with the NPCs. Fallout 3 is a sumptuous and huge graphical feast, although it’s important to point out that the actual quality of graphics aren’t that much better than S:CS. The sheer scale and attention to detail in Fallout 3’s environment is stunning, the developers have beautifully – if that’s the word – created a believable post-apocalyptic landscape and filled it with the detritus of a ruined world. S:CS is a little more modest production, but it is every bit as detailed, especially in the urban areas.

I do, however, have a slight problem with Fallout 3’s user interface. Both F3 and S:CS use a kind of virtual PDA metaphor for the player to access their maps, inventory and other game administration essentials, and they both serve to facilitate similar game activities. Superficially, they both give the player the most immediate data about their status in the game – health, ammo, etc – but the STALKER: Clear Sky version is just so much more developed.

Above: Fallout 3's 'Pip-Boy 3000' player console (left), compared with STALKER: Clear Sky's equivalent (right). The retro-DOS look of F3's data console may fit the style of the game, but I personally find the icon based 'tray' array of S:CS much more intuitive and quick to use. Click on the following image links to see enlarged versions: | Pip-Boy 3000 | Clear Sky PDA |

The S:CS interface is fronted – in the play mode – by nice touches, like the Geiger counter and when opened in the ‘PDA’ mode (which F3 calls the ‘Pip 3000’) the S:CS data has logical touches in presentation, like actual weighs of items carried (important to stamina in both games) and when conducting trading the screen interface is just so much more logical in S:SC.

But these are small niggles. The main difference is in atmosphere, in that STALKER: Clear Sky is a horror based sci-fi game – so if you like jumps with your gaming, there is no doubt whatsoever that you will appreciate STALKER: Clear Sky more.

Fallout 3 does try to be a little scary – but for some reason it just doesn’t come off. Again, perhaps it’s because of the ‘Hollywood’ approach to the narrative that Fallout 3 takes, but you just know what’s coming (hear that change in the background music?). Believe me when I say that creeping through the Chernobyl marshes at night, with just a pistol and a pathetic little torch, with ‘things’ moving about somewhere in the reeds next to you IS scary – and yes, I did jump on several occasions!

Above: While Fallout 3 blows you away with a vast post-nuclear American wasteland, full of crumbling city scapes and broken freeways, STALKER: Clear Sky takes a different tack as it throws you into the Ukranian wastes centered around Chernobyl. Although the S:CS environment is a lot more rural than F3's, it faithfully depicts the former Soviet region faithfully and beautifully models landmarks in a very realistic way that is every bit as amazing as the Fallout 3 world.

And the winner is?

You – you are the winner because here are two exceptional games of fantastic quality and craftsmanship that will keep you gaming into the wee small hours (and have you neglecting other stuff like your blog)!

If I have any criticism it is that while storyline and graphics are excellent in both games the level of interactivity and underlying game format in either game is still lagging behind the technological leaps forward in presentation. The essential game play format of S:CS and F3 is ‘start at A, go to B, do task, then go to C, do task...’ etc, etc (and do some fighting on the way). This is still very much the same format as ‘Manhunter’ which I played on the Sinclair Spectrum 48k in 1988!

Above: A NPC dialogue screen from Fallout 3. While the STALKER: Clear Sky screen is slightly different the handling of dialogue and narrative in either game is much the same; you are presented with a selection of dialgue options from which you must choose. While seeming to offer some level of interactivity and involvement in the development of the game narrative, really all that is happening is that you are broadening the game possibilities in the short term, in the end 'all roads lead to Rome' as they say.

The level of true NPC interactivity still has not progressed beyond an –admittedly more complex – branching narrative that in any case drives the player forward to an inevitable grand finale. In short, game AI and interactivity with NPCs is still not at a level where real free form narrative can produce a totally random and unique set of tasks and dialogues...

The one way I can see to get around this is for someone to produce a post-apocalyptic, cyber-punk, survivalist game – like S:CS or F3 – in an massive online multi-player environment, where interactivity with other real player characters can add the element of dynamic narrative that is missing from these two games. Think of a ‘Mad Max’ version of World of Warcraft’ (er, maybe!) ;)

But in the meantime, these two games are as perfect as the technology of AI allows.

----------------------------

Useful resourses:-

> STALKER: Clear Sky official website
> Fallout 3 official webiste

> Example STALKER: Clear Sky review (IGN)
> Example Fallout 3 review (IGN)