G

I loved Stalker 1 and finished it on max difficulty. 

Many years have passed so I can't remember the details, but I do remember that, in Stalker 1, dying was 100% your fault. 

Stalker2 is more of a trial and error experience, which is actually the opposite of a survival game. It feels like the game is designed to throw nasty stuff at you just to challenge your checkpoint saves.

The "Finding Squint" quest (at the very beginning of the game) is a good example:

You find a bunch of bandits and you can talk to them, but the only options the game gives you are: bribe or fight. What?

A few minutes later, same quest, I found a cave with no monster, and I immediately knew that the monster was supposed to be triggered by a mission event, which it was.

Stalker 1 was more respectful of the free-roaming formula and never relied on these "dirty tricks" (or at least, it never felt so obvious).

So I'm not enjoying Stalker 2. It feels like two steps backwards compared to its predecessor.

Perhaps the problem is that Stalker 1 was simply perfect. In fact, even the two expansions were nowhere near as good as the original game.

Stalker 2 feels more like a third expansion with better graphics to the original game, but it's really far from the perfection of its predecessor.