I'm playing Still Life 2 and i'm nearly the end. I feel a little bit dissapointed about this game... I didn't like a few things, first of all the fact that all the action is taking part in one place: the killer's house. Every time i said "ok done this, done that now let's go away from this house" there i was again at the same place. The characters movement was awful and the gameplay too. I just hated this limited inventory space thing. I wasn't thrilled about the story either... I don't know if it is just me but i was expecting more from this game. If it was another game title it might be ok but considering the quality of the previous one i just felt that the makers got bored in the process of making it. Please forgive me if i'm wrong but this was my first thought when i found myself back at the backyard of the house for third time after i played almost 3/4 of the game. These were my thoughts...
I hope the ending will be good

I enjoyed the game as a thriller though. There are some glitchy spots but the story gripped me.

Personally i was anxious to play Still Life 2 in order to find out who the killer in Still Life 1 was. I was a bit disappointed with the graphics, this is 2009 and the graphics of Still Life 1, 4 years ago were better. The story was good but still it didn't compare with SL. Unfortunately for SL2 it had big shoes to fill with SL1. There would always be a comparison and i also did it as well.

There were some things like the last puzzle which messes up your saves if you don't achieve it the first time. I am glad i did or i would probably throw my pc out of the window if all those hours were wasted.

Another thing is i found some glitches, i had to ask for a saved game after the game kept crashing at the exact same spot, i wasn't too far in the game i believe so it wasn't too much time wasted.

Overall it was a good game but not great, and unfortunately it doesn't compare, for me at least, with Still Life 1.


Spyros

I 've met a few glitches too... for example when i got in the hatch i couuldn't zoom out of vic as paloma. it was a good thing that you can save as many times as you want...

Spyros yes SL2 had big shoes to fill but this is another reason why i think that the makers should have made an extra efford...

I was just so excited when i heard about a sequel for SL and now i don't know what to think...

The thing to remember here is that Microids proper didn't develop the game, GameCo Studios did (although one could argue that Microids had to have been "satisfied" with the final product to release it). That, along with the move to 3D, is bound to bring a whole host of differences. Honestly, it never had a chance to top the original.

It's the mentioned glitchiness that really got under my skin. If they'd only patch the thing, I'd be a little more forgiving.

I've read that the video for the successful ending is available from the game menu once you've completed the game. So even if you "lose" you can see what would have happened if you'd won. But why they chose to foul up your saves if you messed up is beyond me.

Although you can still watch the video it doesn't give you the chance to properly finish the game and for me that's annoying. Even if it's the final puzzle i'd like to at least have a second chance at completing the game properly. If i wanted to just watch the videos i would just download a saved game at the end of the game and watch them all. But that takes away from the feeling of achieving a task, although virtual.

What exactly is happening with the saves at the end of the game? I read it several times in this thread. You can't even go to an older one?

Butcher,
I agree with you. It's much more satisfying to be able to do it yourself.

Volkana,
If you play to the end of the game, and miss the timed puzzle at the end, you lose. This automatically changes/corrupts your saved games so if you try to replay from a save, you'll always lose. You get one shot at winning the game. If you don't win on the first try, you have to replay the whole game to get another chance at winning because your saves are "corrupted." Apparently this was intentional, because the developers allow you to see the winning cut scene from the game menu. They felt this was "good enough." I disagree (as does Butcher).

This isn't the only questionable design decision made for Still Life 2. There was also the limited inventory and the decision to change the identity of the murderer in the original Still Life from the one who was originally planned to a more boring one that required little explanation or imagination (so they could get on with the Still Life 2 story as quickly as possible).

Ok i have played a lot of games with alternate endings and there were always the option of replaying the final minutes so you could see the other endings. I don't like their decision to mess with the saves and if i'm not mistaken this means that we can't keep a back up of the saves, after we finish the game, so we can help other players...

Well, you could help them to ultimately lose.

Becky !!!!

What might work is when you are reaching the final steps backup your saved files, in that way the game cannot "modify" them. It should work if the game modifies the saved games and not some other files. If the saves are backed up you should be able to restore them.

I agree that it is silly and irritating, as I wanted to see the 3 different possible endings (if you fail at one point, then if you fail at the next point as well, and then, of course if you beat all the odds).

I checked Mag's walkthrough, after not being able to restore my gamesave when I , and it seems you do get a second chance by Yeah. Otherwise I would have been livid! I always like to see alternative endings if there are any.

Anyway - I mainly agree with Mag's assessment of the game. Nice as a thriller, and I enjoyed the story and atmosphere. The inventory system did s*ck, and so did the movement glitches. Sadly very different from SL1, one of my favourite games ever.

After watching the Video review of GK1 on GameBoomers and then reading this thread I think I will pass on SL2. It seems like GK1 is a lesson in how to make a game and SL2 is how not to.

It is a thriller for sure. You might enjoy the game.

It is a Thriller....

At first I didn't like the game...I hated the timed puzzles..

Then the story got me really involved...I had to finish the game play...No matter what...

The end part was a little bit too much with the timed puzzles, but I just followed ,MaG's WT...

The story was very well written...The cut scenes where "Suspenseful"

I for one did not like it at all. First of all I didn't really feel the need to have 2 playable characters again. Well if we'd play as Gus again then it would be appropriate since that would have been in the past, but playing as Victoria and as that journalist in the same timeline is just wrong. I feel like they just used 2 characters because they wanted it to be the same as Still Life 1, not neccessary if you ask me. However I didn't play enough of it to see if there's really any relevance when it comes to playing the journalist (in fact I dont remember if she was a journalist or a reporter). I imagine that while playing as this woman you uncover the plot bit by bit which is appropriate, but again theres something about it that just puts me off.

Oh and yes, they said that we were going to know who was the killer in #1 but if I remember correctly, the game started with this and then we didn't hear about it ever again.

I also found the game to be a pixel hunt and the one major puzzle I got to (the door thingy) was way to hard, I had absolutely no idea what I was supposed to do.