2.5/5 ★ – ChucklesBiscotti's review of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2: Heart of Chornobyl.

The STALKER series has always been a fascinating one to me because it's been a part of some of the most blowhard conversations about games over the years. I put myself among the "blowhards" because I was right there discussing these topics as well. I was a staunch defender of both Far Cry 2 and STALKER, and they both had similar DNA in many ways. Those two games came up a lot in relation to the idea of "emergent" gameplay and then also the idea of "hardship" in games. With "emergent" gameplay, if you go back to the time around the original Crysis in 07/08, that's about when the conversation starts getting really silly because there was this idea that "emergent" gameplay was the true barometer of a video game, and it's what a "true" video game was rather than the linear style of a perfectly crafted Naughty Dog game. The idea was that emergent gameplay was something no other entertainment medium could do, and thus it was the superior way to make games and was the best way to tell story in games. It wasn't about "director-driven narrative" rather it was about you creating your own "play-driven narrative" where you did X thing, and that lead to Y thing, and then Z thing happened. It was unique to you, and only you would have that exact experience, and it was far more meaningful and memorable than playing through someone's crafted experience that everyone else would also play. I think at some point we mostly simmered down and recognized militancy around the concept of which was superior was ultimately hurting more than helping -- or we all just kind of got bored of the topic. However, hardships in games is a topic that is still discussed a lot because that's thornier and harder to determine for what's fun vs. what's maddening. What puts you into the world vs. just being overbearing. There is not as much agreement because every person's limit for what they can take is much more variable. On top of that, Souls games have probably done the most to make more people defend this idea. Whether it's a gun jamming, how much fast travel should be allowed, or whatever other topic you want to talk about in that area, this is what "hardship" is for the sake of this discussion. The other thing to note about STALKER is that things like Tarkov and DayZ blew up well after STALKER had already been doing that sort of survival stuff where you go out on a gear run, grab what you can, and then get back to base alive to sell your stuff. In essence, that was the true loop of STALKER, with the missions and stuff just being what drove you out there to do that gameplay loop. STALKER 2 is funny then because all those conversations still exist for this game, but now it in effect is trying harder to be a little more everything to everyone. This is a LARGE game. The systems are more in-depth, the map is HUGE, the story is more narrative-driven than before, and there are more decision points than before that can change future and current missions (and endings, albeit the multiple endings is not new to STALKER). But the usual remains true here where bigger isn't always better. STALKER has also always had major bug issues, and that's because it has the "Todd Problem" of being this sandbox where finding all the bugs and triggers for those bugs is a never-ending nightmare. You created this sandbox, and you're banking on the sandbox being so fun to play around in that you ignore that some kid has shit in the corner of that sandbox. STALKER 2 (much like every other STALKER game) fails the Sandbox Test at times. The breeze inevitably picks up and you get a whiff of the number two baking in the corner of the sandbox. For me, this came in the form of being softlocked after the end of an hour-long mission and not being able to get a a character to spawn and make the next trigger activate. If I didn't know to make 1,000 manual saves because this is a STALKER, this could have either ended my playthrough or sent me back many hours. Instead, it "only" sent me back 1-2 hours. Out of curiosity, I also went online to scope out this bug, and to this day no one with 100 percent certainty knows why that softlock happens or how to stop it from happening. This comes along with needing to reload saves every once in a while when a quest item doesn't spawn in -- a quick fix, but still confusing at moments --frame dips, stutters, enemy spawn irregularities, and weird NPC behaviors. On the bright side, the game only crashed once in 50+ hours of game time. I can easily handle most of that, but what's more offensive to me is the game does become a slog. It's way too long and tedious, has some very repetitive enemies, and it does have one of the worst final "arenas" ever. It's a multi-level room filled with enemies who can one-shot you after you've battled through a lot of other tough fights. In classic STALKER fashion, you can mostly avoid this fight by just triggering the start of the arena battle and retreating until the next objective unlocks -- at that point you just haul ass to the objective and don't shoot anyone. They try with the story, and there's absolutely great lore and environmental storytelling, but I can't say I care much about the plot itself, and I'm going to guess newcomers are just going to be flat-out confused by what the fuck is going on here. This is also the first STALKER game to get a console release at launch, and I would not play this game on console. I did out of curiosity, but I would probably play it on "easy" on console if I had a do-over. It's just so obviously a game meant for PC. From the HUD to the menus to how you're supposed to deal with enemies (precision aim with headshots, headshots, and more headshots), it's a game meant for keyboard and mouse. All this is a long way of saying I GOT A LOT PROBLEMS WITH YOU STALKER, but the other side of the Todd Coin is it has so much wonderful, special weird shit to it. And I would mostly treat it like a peak Todd game by ignoring the main missions most of the time -- or at the very least just doing the main missions when you feel like doing one. You will need to do some of them to get easier access to particular areas of the Zone, and some of the best gear is found via the main missions, but the main missions are not a necessity. The real quality to this game is still those emergent moments. You wander off in this big ass world and do a slightly janky platforming puzzle to find some gear, but then when you're heading back to base you run into some mutants fighting some bandits and third-party the remains. You're feeling pretty good so you decide to try to find one more stash but then, ruh roh, there's a powerful mutant guarding it and your guns are starting to jam. Wandering, discovering, and appreciating all these systems bouncing off each other is where the magic happens, and as popular as things like Tarkov may be now, you're not going to get many experiences that are this well realized in that sense. STALKER 2 is also better at some of the more director-driven missions. Even with the bugs, there's some really great one-off moments from side missions and elsewhere. One of my favorites was talking to a fellow STALKER and agreeing to work with him, except the mission involves hiding in a barn and feeding him jokes over the walkie so he gets in with the other cool STALKERS at the campfire. STALKER 2 remains a hostile game that is short on fast travel and other QoL features that might be expected at this point, and it's still an "old" PC experience in that weird bugs and other issues are barriers to entry as much as understanding the various game mechanics. But it's also a game where if it grabs you, you're hooked (and cooked). You'll overlook the bullshit and so much more because the highs that are here are so unique that you'll say there's nothing else that's truly like this out there. Getting that sort of game on close to a AAA level is wild, even if it's more a Double A game when it comes to everything along the margins.