Yeppo, the first is a pretty good RTS, the second DoW puts you in command of a squad of space marines instead of an army. It's also fun. Please. F3 runs on (a heavily customized) gamebryo. In any case, people seem to be confusing 'the engine' with shaders, geometry detail, texture resolution and worst of all, skill with which assets've been done (you know, 'the engine' doesn't magically create in-game objects, 99% of those are sculpted, textured and animated by people) when trying to determine the technical visual quality of a game. It's annoying. To be honest, even the newest installment in the series, Stalker: Call of Pripyat, isn't exactly a flabbergasting achievement in terms of VG visuals' technical quality. But to say it looks worse than F3's lo-res textured, clunkily animated hunk 'o brown shit is a gross misunderstanding. They're two very different games, both in terms of gameplay, target audience and technical approach. It's as if you compared apples and oranges. A better comparison would be with Metro 2033, which is a bit in the same vein, but wildly different technically. One of the reasons it's so linear is the fact that the levels in that game are insanely full of details. You need segmented areas in order to load all the visual info. An open world a la Stalker with that amount of lighting/object detail would require excellent geometry/texture-streaming/scaling capabilities on your game engine, a bunch of occluders and a computer faster than HAL 9000. Take notice that the most detailed areas in games are always closed-off, separate levels "Worse" as in "The only game I've ever played that was actually buggier than SR2 is Gothic 3" The game is a lot of fun and allows a ton of customizing, definitely go for it. Maybe there's patches. I was able to run it without much problems, except when I wanted to play multi.