The story of the series s.T.A.L.K.E.R. (part 2)

Hello everyone, and I present to your attention the continuation of the story of a stalker. We tried to take into account the made mistakes. The voice seemed to be twisted (although the speed of speech remains in the list of future corrections). In short, there is still something to work on. In the meantime ..

(There was a Flash player, but since 2020, Flash has not been supported by browsers)

The best comments

Very “lean” story of the series. A video sequentary from the story, not too suitable for the atmosphere of the game, music and a completely unemotional voice behind the scenes cause despondency and yawning. But even if the author worked on his articulation, used a couple of original tracks from the game and crossed the hands of his comrade, occupied by the installation, the review would still remain uninformative and superficial. Features of gameplay releasing a stalker from a number of hundreds of template FPS are not disclosed. The plot is sluggishly retelling, while on the screen we observe something completely different. There is no analysis, there is no criticism, no, damn it, confident opinion about the game and its individual elements. “Some players say this, others say differently. “Thank you, Cap. If there is not enough courage to give your firm assessment, then why take on a review? And most importantly, as for me, – there is no love for a subjug. Therefore, the video is perceived as if it was done on “ot*s and”. Sadly.

Yes, in the sense of an assessment. No one asks to put a series of games 8/10. This is nonsense. Saying “assessment”, I mean “opinion” – how the authors themselves evaluate certain aspects of the game (and do not blame the fact that, they say, “some criticize, others rejoice”).
In general, one gets an impression, something except on game sites, many the word “review” has not been met anywhere else and are not able to understand it in a broad sense. That is, roughly speaking, if the site interface has a separate button “Reviews” and the “Story series” button, then the story of the series is not a review. It’s difficult to strain and think of it that the “History of the series” is just a type of review.
Review is the format itself, the shell in which the information is wrapped. The history of the series is already the subject of this review, what it is dedicated. I hope this is understandable.

Not bad, but try to pick up a better https://luckukcasino.co.uk/ video. For example, if you are talking about groups-put moments with groups and t.D.

The ambiguous video turned out. Firstly, the moments where Ator is silent and just plays music, it lengthens an already short video. Secondly, there is little information in this part. Instead of telling the plot of the game, it would be better to rummage in the history of development, etc.D. I did not hear that the pure Nobo was tolerated, I did not hear that the games were cut again (Pripyat’s dungeons, which then returned to the call

How categorical you are! Maybe for a start in the dictionary, you see what “review” and “survey” is, and? The only difference is that this is a review of not one game, but several at once. Therefore, in addition to the analysis of each of them, it is necessary to trace the development of ideas, determine the general trends and patterns. But in form, this audiovisual work is nothing more than a review.

Well, it was necessary to at least chuuutu-chuuut to say about locations in the zp. And yes, the video in my opinion did not select, but they threw it all.
Although for work of course +

maybe because it’s not a review

Well, when you say, they say it became much more interesting to fight, the AI ​​became smarter, and the frames show how the player and the bot look at each other point blank and recharge … well, somehow funny)

I do not remember that at the end of the story of the series they put on estimates somewhere./BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, not in that sense, the assessment. No one asks to put a series of games 8/10. This is nonsense. Saying “assessment”, I mean “opinion” – how the authors themselves evaluate certain aspects of the game (and do not blame the fact that, they say, “some criticize, others rejoice”).
In general, one gets an impression, something except on game sites, many the word “review” has not been met anywhere else and are not able to understand it in a broad sense. That is, roughly speaking, if the site interface has a separate button “Reviews” and the “Story series” button, then the story of the series is not a review. It’s difficult to strain and think of it that the “History of the series” is just a type of review. Review is the format itself, the shell in which the information is wrapped. The history of the series is already the subject of this review, what it is dedicated. I hope this is understandable.

Yes, everything was clearly set out, thanks. No, I do not perceive the word “review”, like something narrow. But for example, in the theater and cinema there is a word review. In fact, this is one and the same, but, as it seems to me, the review, including the game more depth. That is, in the review, you “ran through the game”, designated minuses and pluses, highlighted the distinctive features of the game, expressed his opinion and assessed. But about the history of the series, as a variety of reviews did not think.