Support us on Patreon
PayPalS.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Legends of the Zone Trilogy Enhanced Edition is out now, needs a workaround on Linux
GSC Game World have released the S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Legends of the Zone Trilogy Enhanced Edition now which includes S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chornobyl - Enhanced Edition, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky - Enhanced Edition and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Prypiat - Enhanced Edition.
If you own the originals, you should receive the new editions for free. The Enhanced Editions also include the originals.
YouTube videos require cookies, you must accept their cookies to view. View cookie preferences.
Direct Link
Direct Link
Each game comes with an assortment of upgrades including:
- Atmospheric visual enhancements including God Rays, Dynamic Screen Space Reflections, and Advanced Global Illumination effects.
- Redesigned water shaders, upgraded skyboxes, and wetness effects.
- Improved visuals with upscaled textures featuring more detailed NPCs and environment.
- Upgraded weapon Field of View and models.
- Multiple bugfixes and quality of life tweaks.
- Full gamepad support.
This also makes the series a much better fit on the Steam Deck too. Plus there's also Steam Workshop support and Cloud Saves as well.
The only one I actually own is S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Prypiat, so that's what I picked for some testing today, along with the latest Proton 10 Beta. Early reports from players on Steam have pushed all three Enhanced Editions rapidly into "Mostly Negative". Many noting it's a "blurry mess", so I wanted to see what's going on.
On Desktop Linux, the game will not run out of the box, and ends up giving a black screen with this error:
You can get around that by spoofing a Steam Deck, using this launch option:
SteamDeck=1 %command%
On Steam Deck however, the game does work out of the box.
Once getting into S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Prypiat - Enhanced Edition and fiddling with some settings here's some unfiltered shots of it on Max settings at 2560x1440. Running on Kubuntu 25.04, AMD Ryzen 5800X, Radeon RX 6800 XT on Mesa 25.0.3:
To me, the game doesn't look particularly blurry, certainly not to the level the Steam user reviews are suggesting. There's some slight blurry bits the further you are away but the picture is overall quite clear. And on Max settings, it seems to run well enough on Desktop Linux. Even with the enhancements though, I would have expected performance to be a fair bit higher than it is.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
You can also find comments for this article on social media: All posts need to follow our rules. For users logged in: please hit the Report Flag icon on any post that breaks the rules or contains illegal / harmful content. Guest readers can email us for any issues.
Caldathras, sorry but that's ridiculous revisionism. It has long been quite popular on the far right, seems lately they've repeated it so often it's become mainstream, but it is not true. Nazism and Soviet Communism were both bad but in very different ways, and Nazi ideology was extremely anti-socialist. I think when people start saying this kind of thing it's worth remembering how the poem goes:
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist."
Obviously they weren't coming for the socialists and trade unionists because they themselves were socialists. They were coming for them because they were fiercely opposed to them. Everyone at the time knew perfectly well that the Communists and Socialists hated the Nazis and vice versa; they were always having big street battles before the Nazis got into power.
And, state elites that control everything function differently from private elites that own everything. It's like saying feudalism was the same as capitalism, just that in feudalism it was aristocratic elites that owned everything while in capitalism it's private elites that own everything--they work different, the difference in what kind of elite is screwing everything up makes big changes in how they screw everything up.
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist."
Obviously they weren't coming for the socialists and trade unionists because they themselves were socialists. They were coming for them because they were fiercely opposed to them. Everyone at the time knew perfectly well that the Communists and Socialists hated the Nazis and vice versa; they were always having big street battles before the Nazis got into power.
And, state elites that control everything function differently from private elites that own everything. It's like saying feudalism was the same as capitalism, just that in feudalism it was aristocratic elites that owned everything while in capitalism it's private elites that own everything--they work different, the difference in what kind of elite is screwing everything up makes big changes in how they screw everything up.
0 Likes
Caldathras a day ago
@Purple Library Guy
Revisionism? I was taught this in high school in social/political studies in the mid 1980s. I would be more inclined to believe that your view represents the revisionism. I even remember the teacher putting up a spectrum of Socialism showing Fascism at one end and Communism at the other. Presumably, social democracy was somewhere in the middle.
I should point out that I was talking about Fascism not Nazism. IMO, Nazism was a perversion of Fascism by a group of madmen. Not that this makes Fascism any better an option. That could, I suppose, also be said about Communism as well. In that case, the utopian wet-dream of Marxism, when implemented, became the reality of Communism which was later twisted by the horror of Stalinism.
Correct me if I'm wrong (FYI, I'm not) but isn't the proper name of the Nazi Party actually the National Socialist German Workers' Party? Wouldn't that contradict your assertion in and of itself?
All I was trying to point out that there are different kinds of socialism, just as there are different kinds of democracy, different kinds of feudalism, and different kinds of totalitarianism. On a very simplistic level, the primary difference between Fascism and Communism is the ownership of the resources and assets. Of course, one can find other differences if one chooses to dig further into the details.
I am not trying to engage in an argument here. I suspect you are younger than I. Your views are formed by the idealogies that influenced your education, as are mine. As, I suspect, would be the views of my father and grandfather, both of whom lived through WW2, the former as a child and the latter actively supporting the resistance to German occupation.
Revisionism? I was taught this in high school in social/political studies in the mid 1980s. I would be more inclined to believe that your view represents the revisionism. I even remember the teacher putting up a spectrum of Socialism showing Fascism at one end and Communism at the other. Presumably, social democracy was somewhere in the middle.
I should point out that I was talking about Fascism not Nazism. IMO, Nazism was a perversion of Fascism by a group of madmen. Not that this makes Fascism any better an option. That could, I suppose, also be said about Communism as well. In that case, the utopian wet-dream of Marxism, when implemented, became the reality of Communism which was later twisted by the horror of Stalinism.
and Nazi ideology was extremely anti-socialist
Obviously they weren't coming for the socialists and trade unionists because they themselves were socialists.It is kind of naive to think that it is not possible for socialists to hate other types of socialists. Quoting the (admittedly profound) poem of a former Nazi supporter is hardly proof that the Nazis were not socialist.
Correct me if I'm wrong (FYI, I'm not) but isn't the proper name of the Nazi Party actually the National Socialist German Workers' Party? Wouldn't that contradict your assertion in and of itself?
All I was trying to point out that there are different kinds of socialism, just as there are different kinds of democracy, different kinds of feudalism, and different kinds of totalitarianism. On a very simplistic level, the primary difference between Fascism and Communism is the ownership of the resources and assets. Of course, one can find other differences if one chooses to dig further into the details.
I am not trying to engage in an argument here. I suspect you are younger than I. Your views are formed by the idealogies that influenced your education, as are mine. As, I suspect, would be the views of my father and grandfather, both of whom lived through WW2, the former as a child and the latter actively supporting the resistance to German occupation.
0 Likes
Caldathras a day ago
@Purple Library Guy
Last edited by Caldathras on 24 May 2025 at 6:35 pm UTC
the difference in what kind of elite is screwing everything up makes big changes in how they screw everything up.In this we can agree.
Last edited by Caldathras on 24 May 2025 at 6:35 pm UTC
0 Likes
tuubi a day ago
@Caldathras
You might want to check a dictionary for a definition of Socialism. A far-right ideology like Fascism simply cannot be it. Maybe you're simply mixing up your terminology?
At the risk of blatant oversimplification: If workers don't own the means of production, it's not Socialism. If the government doesn't protect and empower the working class (and seek to minimise poverty and inequality), it's not even Social Democracy. And Socialism, in any of its forms, is simply not compatible with a capitalist elite.
Anyone who didn't learn their history of Nazi Germany from trashy Youtube videos or podcasts knows why the party had "socialist" in the name when it obviously didn't adhere to the ideology, and how Hitler had his own spin on the meaning of Socialism. He actually claimed that Marxists "stole and perverted" the word and he was taking it back or some such nonsense. Yet this is one of the most common arguments that Fascists and others on the far-right spout to try to discredit those on the left.
You might want to check a dictionary for a definition of Socialism. A far-right ideology like Fascism simply cannot be it. Maybe you're simply mixing up your terminology?
At the risk of blatant oversimplification: If workers don't own the means of production, it's not Socialism. If the government doesn't protect and empower the working class (and seek to minimise poverty and inequality), it's not even Social Democracy. And Socialism, in any of its forms, is simply not compatible with a capitalist elite.
Correct me if I'm wrong (FYI, I'm not) but isn't the proper name of the Nazi Party actually the National Socialist German Workers' Party? Wouldn't that contradict your assertion in and of itself?This talking point is a good example of the far-right revisionism Purple Library Guy mentioned. Policy and actions are what determine a party's position on the ideological spectrum, not the name.
Anyone who didn't learn their history of Nazi Germany from trashy Youtube videos or podcasts knows why the party had "socialist" in the name when it obviously didn't adhere to the ideology, and how Hitler had his own spin on the meaning of Socialism. He actually claimed that Marxists "stole and perverted" the word and he was taking it back or some such nonsense. Yet this is one of the most common arguments that Fascists and others on the far-right spout to try to discredit those on the left.
0 Likes
Caldathras 8 hours ago
@tuubi
As I was taught long ago, Fascism is typically placed on the right of the socialist spectrum, whereas Communism has been placed on the left of that spectrum. However, in terms of political systems, all socialist idealogies are considered to be left-leaning (i.e., more government intrusion). The true political right leans towards less government involvement in society, not more. The failure to distinguish the difference between the socialist spectrum and its place in the entire political spectrum has led to a great deal of confusion as to what is left or right.
Fascism was developed by two socialists, expanding on the ideas of Karl Marx. What we now know as Nazism was originally called National Socialism. Both put the socialist focus on the nation instead of the working class, as would have been advocated by Marx.
Contrary to the assertion of @Purple Library Guy, Hitler did not hate the Communists. He considered them brothers and said so publicly. Hitler did, however, silence anyone he believed opposed him.
FYI, my understanding of the political realities of the first half of the 20th century pre-dates YouTube. Please do not attempt to denigrate my opinions by suggesting they are influenced by social media.
This is the last I have to say on the matter.
Last edited by Caldathras on 25 May 2025 at 6:57 pm UTC
You might want to check a dictionary for a definition of Socialism.No offense, @tuubi, but you might want to check an encyclopedia yourself.
If workers don't own the means of production, it's not SocialismYou have defined Communism (or, perhaps, Marxism), not Socialism. Socialism comes in many variants. Karl Marx was not the originator of the idea of Socialism, as many have come to believe. In regards to Socialism, it is generally considered that the resources and means of production should be controlled by the state. Not the workers, the state (i.e., the government). And this does not necessarily imply ownership, either. Capitalism functions quite well with many forms of socialism.
As I was taught long ago, Fascism is typically placed on the right of the socialist spectrum, whereas Communism has been placed on the left of that spectrum. However, in terms of political systems, all socialist idealogies are considered to be left-leaning (i.e., more government intrusion). The true political right leans towards less government involvement in society, not more. The failure to distinguish the difference between the socialist spectrum and its place in the entire political spectrum has led to a great deal of confusion as to what is left or right.
Fascism was developed by two socialists, expanding on the ideas of Karl Marx. What we now know as Nazism was originally called National Socialism. Both put the socialist focus on the nation instead of the working class, as would have been advocated by Marx.
Contrary to the assertion of @Purple Library Guy, Hitler did not hate the Communists. He considered them brothers and said so publicly. Hitler did, however, silence anyone he believed opposed him.
FYI, my understanding of the political realities of the first half of the 20th century pre-dates YouTube. Please do not attempt to denigrate my opinions by suggesting they are influenced by social media.
This is the last I have to say on the matter.
Last edited by Caldathras on 25 May 2025 at 6:57 pm UTC
0 Likes
tuubi 6 hours ago
@Caldathras
And yeah, I know the "rules" in my previous reply were overly simplistic and easily nitpicked. That's why I put the disclaimer in front of that paragraph. But okay, here's another try: Socialism requires that the means of production are socially controlled, either by the state or collectively, and thus it's not compatible with Capitalism and private ownership.
No offense, @tuubi, but you might want to check an encyclopedia yourself.I know the difference, and I did mean to say dictionary. They seek to provide a short, to-the-point definition of a word or term, as opposed to an extensive explanation you'll find in an encyclopedia. Although I do recognise that different dictionaries (and encyclopedias) also have biases and might not always agree, especially when it comes to politics and other controversial subjects.
This is the last I have to say on the matter.That might be for the best as you seem badly misinformed on these subjects, and unwilling to do even the tiniest bit of fact checking to back up your arguments. If your school truly taught you that Fascism is Socialism, your teachers didn't know what they were talking about, or were misleading you on purpose. I mean, write "is fascism a form of socialism" into any search engine and the only sources you'll find that say "yes" are ones pushing an easily confirmed right-wing agenda. That should tell you something.
And yeah, I know the "rules" in my previous reply were overly simplistic and easily nitpicked. That's why I put the disclaimer in front of that paragraph. But okay, here's another try: Socialism requires that the means of production are socially controlled, either by the state or collectively, and thus it's not compatible with Capitalism and private ownership.
0 Likes
Caldathras 1 hour ago
@tuubi
You are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you. Let's just call it a day, shall we?
Last edited by Caldathras on 26 May 2025 at 1:59 am UTC
you seem badly misinformed ...Funny. I could have said the same thing about you. I just chose to be polite and end the conversation. I didn't see you backing up your claims either.
You are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you. Let's just call it a day, shall we?
Last edited by Caldathras on 26 May 2025 at 1:59 am UTC
0 Likes
How to install, update and see what graphics driver you have on Linux and SteamOS
How to set, change and reset your SteamOS / Steam Deck desktop sudo password
See more from me