[kadji-kun]

If it has closure, then I'll definitely check out the game. I realized my last post was actually badly written where it can offend people. >_<

[millenia]

Originally Posted by L-Jazz

That's about as fair as the holocaust was.

Seriously, Still Life 2 is a great game and one of the most unique ones I've come across. The claustrophobic feeling you get from not being able to go where you want to is essential to this game. I strongly felt toyed with by the East Coast Killer.
And to see Victoria so vulnerable during some of the later parts of the game was quite interesting.

Nothing unfair about it. Did you really read my post? I clearly stated that I did not want to play survival horror and to me the whole plot was unbelievably predictable. I also stated that the game came nowhere near to earn the title of Still Life since I consider the first game to be a masterpiece. So your claustrophobic feelings etc. etc. didn't work for me at all.

Also the conclusion to the Chicago case was a let down. We got a killer yes, but nothing else. They could have just added that crap to the end of the first game (and ruin it) since there was obviously no thought put into it at all. Considering all this and the fact that the game was very unpolished, buggy, slow, clumsy, static and ugly... There's just not much to like.

If you don't expect a game that's like Still Life or any other great adventure game and you don't mind the bad graphics, the boring house where you spend the whole game in, and the bugs and the shallow characters, countless timed sequences, predictable plot twists.. Yes, someone can definitely like this game. But this really is not a good game and not something you would recommend when people come to ask about great adventure titles.

When I started this game I did look past the graphics that are mostly worse than the original Still Life, I didn't even mind being trapped by the killer or the first timed sequence. But it all went just downhill from there. Seriously the whole game is in that one ugly house and you can see every single plot twist from miles away. I played it to the end hoping and hoping that they wouldn't do it, but they did. And not only screwing the plot, the ending is swarming with timed sequences. By that time I just didn't give a rats ass anymore and just did it with walkthru to see the ending, which was boring. I am not touching this game ever again .

For reference, I disliked the action/sneaking sequences of Dreamfall but the story and the game overall is still great (though easy) and I give it a 4,5/5 (while TLJ is one the greatest adventures ever and a clear 5/5). But Still Life 2 just sucks in so many dimensions I'm not really sure if I could get myself to give it a 2/5 in a good day.

[L-Jazz]

Originally Posted by millenia

Nothing unfair about it. Did you really read my post? I clearly stated that I did not want to play survival horror and to me the whole plot was unbelievably predictable. I also stated that the game came nowhere near to earn the title of Still Life since I consider the first game to be a masterpiece. So your claustrophobic feelings etc. etc. didn't work for me at all.

Also the conclusion to the Chicago case was a let down. We got a killer yes, but nothing else. They could have just added that crap to the end of the first game (and ruin it) since there was obviously no thought put into it at all. Considering all this and the fact that the game was very unpolished, buggy, slow, clumsy, static and ugly... There's just not much to like.

If you don't expect a game that's like Still Life or any other great adventure game and you don't mind the bad graphics, the boring house where you spend the whole game in, and the bugs and the shallow characters, countless timed sequences, predictable plot twists.. Yes, someone can definitely like this game. But this really is not a good game and not something you would recommend when people come to ask about great adventure titles.

When I started this game I did look past the graphics that are mostly worse than the original Still Life, I didn't even mind being trapped by the killer or the first timed sequence. But it all went just downhill from there. Seriously the whole game is in that one ugly house and you can see every single plot twist from miles away. I played it to the end hoping and hoping that they wouldn't do it, but they did. And not only screwing the plot, the ending is swarming with timed sequences. By that time I just didn't give a rats ass anymore and just did it with walkthru to see the ending, which was boring. I am not touching this game ever again .

For reference, I disliked the action/sneaking sequences of Dreamfall but the story and the game overall is still great (though easy) and I give it a 4,5/5 (while TLJ is one the greatest adventures ever and a clear 5/5). But Still Life 2 just sucks in so many dimensions I'm not really sure if I could get myself to give it a 2/5 in a good day.

Yes, I did read your post, and I simply think that you are overly critical towards the game. I do understand that it is not a game for you, but that does not make it a bad game.

About the conclusion on the original Still Life, it's not exactly the way you describe it; "We got a killer yes, but nothing else".
It's not as if they simply tell us in a cut scene who it was and then that's that.
You get to discover some bits and pieces of the mystery and it's divided into three(?) parts that take place as flashbacks during the main adventure.
If you add that to the original Still Life story, then it is one heck of a game.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the open ending of Still Life have something to do about financial issues or production problems or something like that?

[millenia]

Originally Posted by L-Jazz

Yes, I did read your post, and I simply think that you are overly critical towards the game. I do understand that it is not a game for you, but that does not make it a bad game.

About the conclusion on the original Still Life, it's not exactly the way you describe it; "We got a killer yes, but nothing else".
It's not as if they simply tell us in a cut scene who it was and then that's that.
You get to discover some bits and pieces of the mystery and it's divided into three(?) parts that take place as flashbacks during the main adventure.
If you add that to the original Still Life story, then it is one heck of a game.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the open ending of Still Life have something to do about financial issues or production problems or something like that?

Yes they had to cut it short. The problem with the ending for it in SL2 is not that there isn't enough scenes, it's that nothing really is explained. All those interesting things that bugged you while playing Still Life are just forgotten. They only reveal who and a lame excuse of why. There is no reason why the certain killings were different etc. And there was nothing surprising to it. Honestly I think they would have built up a much better conclusion if they had had the money to finish the first game in the first place.

The only things that are good about Still Life 2 are the panic feeling (which many of adventure gamers don't like) and the plot twists (which are a horrible ripoff from everyone-knows-what and will not impress you if you see them coming even before they introduce the characters properly). To me that's very little pros where the cons are plenty - and more. No doubt there are a few (and maybe even more than a few) that can enjoy this game but it's still not a great game, saying that is a clear exaggeration to the positive.

If this game was something other than Still Life, I wouldn't bother bashing it here though. It is an utter disappointment as a sequel and really made me feel bad how they almost ruined the whole name.