i'm wondering which game to get, they're both apocolyptic-themed and they've both got similar game-play elements (scavengeing for food/items and completing random quests) and they've both got big, open worlds, the only difference I can see is that Fallout 3 has actual RPG elements....

anyways, what do you guys think?

Stalker has the creepiest atmosphere I ever played. It is definitely worth a purchase if you're into getting immersed in a harsh world.

is it like really sad and gloomy with survival horror?

in that case, I'll get FO3 cuse from the trailers it seems to have lots of humour

ya i would go with fallout 3 mate i think its going to be the best rpg of the year and has a class theme stalker is more survival based okay fo3 is more rpg did you like oblivion if you did get fo3

Fallout 3 will be better than Stalker.

Easily Fallout 3. I think STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl was a mediocre shooter. Boring graphics and Clear Sky looks almost identical. (But Fallout 3 hasn't high end graphics either)

Stalker is the "Oblivion" of the shooter world and you're comparing a game made by the makers of Oblivion as a cross between an RPG and a Shooter.

I dunno about you guys, but this comparison is funny.

Fallout 3. It has rabid dogs

Fallout 3.

STALKER for me - I always prefer true FPS controls over the scheme Fallout has judging by the previews. Mind you I'll be getting both so it hardly matters.