Still Life 2

[Intrepid Homoludens]

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b190/Beiddie/still_life_vic.jpg

I was one of the many who felt cheated by the weakly conceived, rudely abrupt, and irresolute ending of Still Life. I finished the game late last night (after not touching it for about 3 years, during which I found better games to play) initially with the thought of letting this feeling go because I thought there was no sequel coming (with Microids having shut down immediately after the game's release back then).

Then I saw the announcement of the sequel (http://www.adventuregamers.com/newsitem.php?id=1582). So I thought, This should be a chance for Microids to stop crapping themselves and us and just write an even better story this time. That is, a story that is self-contained and rewards our hard work on the gameplay, not by robbing us of the knowledge of who the murderer was, but by revealing to us who it is and yet perhaps leaving other less important but still pertinent cliffhangers. We played through Still Life with the main intent of finding the identity of the killer, that was the most important thing. The story in this regard failed miserably because it took that reward away from us and we so doggedly worked hard for it.

:) Regardless, I enjoyed Still Life mostly for its story and writing. I look forward to seeing Microids do a better job with Still Life 2. What are your thoughts on this series?

(If you include spoilers in your post make sure to use the spoiler tag, that bold ? next to the frying pan above the posting field.)

[diego]

first and most important of all, its good to see sequels of high praised and respected adventure games, such as black mirror, runaway, secret files or still life, because it is good for adventure genre, along with many new interesting titles that are coming this year.

my play experience of still life can be easily compared with experience that i had while watching the movie zodiac. i already knew in both cases that you dont get to learn the killer identity for sure, so i was already prepared for that scenario and i think because of that i enjoyed more then i would in case i didnt know that.

i dont think still life is a perfect game nevertheless of its ending, but if u ask me i am really happy to see sequel coming and i will play it right away.

when its down to murder detective mistery it is really satisfying to come up with a traditional ending in sherlock holmes or poirot style, so they got many bad critics because of their end because player expect some reward on conclusion. but on the other hand, now they have more solutions to upgrade the story, and even the excitement is bigger just because of story speculations. i dont know what was the case with still life, but could be

- they planned the end as it was without knowledge of a possible sequel - well, ok, it is designers choice. maybe they know who the killer is, maybe they dont, but they wanted the game that way. if thats so, they shouldnt come up with something quick just because of the critics.

- they planned sequel - maybe they really wanted to give some solutions in later games in episodic manner, although for some reason the sequel is coming after 3 years. but if u ask me, i would do now without good end explanations in the stories of monkey island 1-4 and gabriel knight 1-3 just to see monkey 5 or gk4.

in both cases, as i already said, the only important thing is that the sequels is coming

[Dale Baldwin]

i dont know what was the case with still life, but could be [snip]
Basically, the game was designed to have a whole second part in LA, where you would then have discovered the killer's identity.

However, MC2 had financial problems and ultimately sold Microids Canada (development team of Still Life) to Ubisoft, so they then had to cut the game short as best they could to get the game out at all, thus leaving us with the Still Life we have now. Without the relaunch of the Microids brand (http://www.adventuregamers.com/newsitem.php?id=1577)last November, Still Life 2 would probably not be in development now. How Still Life 2 will address the previous game is still unknown.

[SoccerDude28]

That's why I always think that a video game, TV show or movie should always finish the main plot in the same game/show/movie. It is ok to introduce a new hanging fruit at the very end that will make people more interested in buying a sequel, but this addition should not be the answer to the main plot, but rather an introduction to the sequel. Back to the Future is a great example of that.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I agree, Soccsie. I believe that where Still Life failed was the choice of what elements in the story to make into the cliffhanger. The main, central, focus, etc. intent - of the writer and of us, the players - is to reveal/discover the identity of the murderer. We worked through the entire game, solved all the puzzles, exhausted all possible dialogue options, to reach that point. Then the game is on the cusp of giving us the moment of truth.....but at the last second denies us that truth. So you could say that emotionally as a game it cheated us.

It may have been more successfully done if Still Life were a novel. You don't have to work your way solving puzzles and pointing & clicking around to get to the ending. Even classics like Agatha Christie's books and Sherlock Holmes stories put you in the passenger seat, not the driver's seat. But Still Life is not a novel, it's a game and we do much of the work so in the end the whole experience owes us that final revelation for our sweat. In this case it ripped us off by denying it.

That's why I feel it would have worked if, as we agreed, Soccsie, the story revealed who the killer was (that was our central goal as players to find out) BUT also raised new questions surrounding the killer, and those questions could become the new mystery in the sequel. Like for example, so-and-so is the killer but what was their relationship to the history of the entire thing leading up to the present day? Is there a connection to certain elements in the various crimes other than the obvious ones, etc.?

In other words, a self-contained story, but one that leaves questions that can whet our appetite for the next story of the sequel.

But we can leave that up to Still Life 2 to hopefully be more tidily summed up as a murder mystery.

[rtrooney]

That's why I always think that a video game, TV show or movie should always finish the main plot in the same game/show/movie. Think the video game is out of the question unless the current owners of the Still Life franchise decide it's a good thing to invest money in the game.

TV show? Movie? Unlikely. The game didn't sell that well. It's hard to justify spending $multi-millions to develop a movie or TV show for a fan base that that bought less than a million copies of the game.

Think you only have to go back to the Lara Croft games to see where this goes. Fair game. Bad movie despite seeing AJ in a skin-tight suit. Bad reviews. Bad box office.

Seriously doubt it will happen, but then I may have mis-interpreted your comment.

[carlotta von uberwald]

I was thrilled when I saw there would be a sequel to Still Life. But the cookie puzzle had me tearing strips of hair out!!!! and I second that with the lock/pick puzzle. I think if they leave a story unended there should be a sequel I hate things unfinished. Bring on Grim Fandango 2, Dreamfall 2 & Syberia 3.

[kadji-kun]

I was thrilled when I saw there would be a sequel to Still Life. But the cookie puzzle had me tearing strips of hair out!!!! and I second that with the lock/pick puzzle.

It only took me 5 minutes to complete. I wrote down the recipe, then compared them to the ingredients. Each ingredient has a symbolic meaning, which in turn, is childs play. NOW the lock pick puzzle on the other hand was ANNOYING!

[Buko]

I want to see some sceenshots soon! :-)

[stepurhan]

I think SoccerDude was saying that all of the things mentioned (films, TV series and games) should finish up their stories properly, not that Still Life should be made into a film or TV series.

Probably best if they didn't. Tomb Raider isn't the only example of abject failure in that department.

Hopefully Still Life 2 won't make the same mistake with whatever new plot they come up with.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

...the cookie puzzle had me tearing strips of hair out!!!! and I second that with the lock/pick puzzle.

It only took me 5 minutes to complete. I wrote down the recipe, then compared them to the ingredients. Each ingredient has a symbolic meaning, which in turn, is childs play. NOW the lock pick puzzle on the other hand was ANNOYING!

The moment I came across the cookie puzzle I said "F*** this sh**!" and immediately used a walkthrough. This is because I think it's one of the most insultingly stupid ideas for a puzzle. Why should I be forced to suddenly figure out how to bake cookies in the middle of a very serious FBI investigation of a serial killer? I don't remember Clarice Starling or Will Graham baking cookies. I refused this puzzle based on thematic conceptual stupidity. LOL! :P

As for the lockpicking puzzle, wow! It took me just over an hour but my patience and sheer observation paid off. I almost want to boot up the game to do it again.

[Dixsept]

I want to see some sceenshots soon! :-)
It will be great to see some of them!!!:) I really enjoyed this game, and I look forward to Still Life 2!:)

[TiAgUh]

I was thrilled when I saw there would be a sequel to Still Life. But the cookie puzzle had me tearing strips of hair out!!!! and I second that with the lock/pick puzzle.!
..
It only took me 5 minutes to complete. I wrote down the recipe, then compared them to the ingredients. Each ingredient has a symbolic meaning, which in turn, is childs play. NOW the lock pick puzzle on the other hand was ANNOYING!

Co-sign. Finally Im not the only one who thinks that. :P

[kadji-kun]

It will be great to see some of them!!!:) I really enjoyed this game, and I look forward to Still Life 2!:)

*phew* I was starting to feel out of place here. ;)

[Terramax]

It only took me 5 minutes to complete. I wrote down the recipe, then compared them to the ingredients. Each ingredient has a symbolic meaning, which in turn, is childs play.

..
Co-sign. Finally Im not the only one who thinks that. :P

For me, it wasn't that it was hard, but I skipped through it simply because I didn't have the energy to spend time figuring it out. The fact that the puzzle was there for no reason other than filler was annoying enough.

To the programmers of SL2, if anything, please Christ almighty have the puzzles be relevant to the plot!?

[AprilLives]

In so many ways a great adventure game. The puzzles were good overall ... fair and interesting, I thought, with some challenges. BUT … that lock pick puzzle had to be the worst!! If I hadn't cheated on that one, I'd still be trying to get through the game.

[Kolzig]

One more game that I do own, but I've never played.

Well, I did play the demo back in the day when that was released and based on the demo I bought the game.

Not that much gaming happening these days anymore...

[Codeguru]

The moment I came across the cookie puzzle I said "F*** this sh**!" and immediately used a walkthrough. This is because I think it's one of the most insultingly stupid ideas for a puzzle. Why should I be forced to suddenly figure out how to bake cookies in the middle of a very serious FBI investigation of a serial killer? I don't remember Clarice Starling or Will Graham baking cookies. I refused this puzzle based on thematic conceptual stupidity. LOL! :P

Heh, isn't the protagonist a woman? That's why I specifically avoid games in which they specifically say it is...

Codeguru

[stepurhan]

Heh, isn't the protagonist a woman? That's why I specifically avoid games in which they specifically say it is...

CodeguruI hope that was meant to be a joke. If not then may I remind you that one of the rules of the forum is to show respect for other members, many of whom are female.

I would also say that, in my opinion, that's ridiculous anyway. I haven't played Still Life specifically but I've played many other games with both male and female protagonists and the good/annoying mix is about even.

[Lee in Limbo]

Heh, isn't the protagonist a woman? That's why I specifically avoid games in which they specifically say it is...Cooking is not strictly the domain of women. Presuming that a game is going to be poor because it has a female protagonist, and thus will probably have puzzles with themes that you regard as being feminine (i.e. stupid) is not a very good basis for judging a game.

That being said, I found that puzzle a little goofy myself. It wasn't insurmountable, however. Just tricky, and not as linear or as purely logical sounding as some AGers have come to expect their puzzles. There was some lyrical interpretation involved there, which required a certain degree of skill at decoding the English language. I rather liked that. I thought it was a brave idea, even if I thought the puzzle itself was a little meh. I was much more irritated with the keyhole puzzle, and that one was about as logic-based as they come.

[QDream]

this is now the only game I'm looking forward to beside Alan Wake & the Dreamfall sequel

[mszv]

If you are playing a 3rd person game, then you are playing a character different from yourself. So, whether the character is a man or a women - either works for me. I get to borrow their life a little bit, which is great.

I really liked Still Life, unclear ending and all. I'm glad there is going to be a sequel, and in full 3D!

[Codeguru]

Cooking is not strictly the domain of women. Presuming that a game is going to be poor because it has a female protagonist, and thus will probably have puzzles with themes that you regard as being feminine (i.e. stupid) is not a very good basis for judging a game.

Actually it is and has been a good deterrent to games I've hated. Though being the only person who can validate that I see no reason to defend it further...

Codeguru

[Terramax]

I have to admit, adventures with women protagonists haven't always hit it well with me either.

I couldn't sympathise or bring myself to like Kate Walker in Syberia (although I'm sure I'll get round to giving it another try in the future) and I could pretty much dedicate my entire life to channeling my hatred to all things April Ryan in TLJ.

However, Victoria McPherson is without doubt one of the best characters I've had the pleasure of playing as in an adventure. She's strong (even brutal), clever yet on a number of occasions shows a strong sensitive side... agreed, games like Nancy Drew, Touch Detective and a few others take the biscuit with their overtly, unshameably feminine qualities, but I think if you've not played Still Life merely because the protagonist is a women, you're missing out on a lot bro. Vic packs more of a punch than most male adventure game leads. And for the record, Still Life on the whole is about as mature as adventures get.

Best of all they managed to pull off all of the above without making her overtly sexual. I understand a woman once commented on an adventure forum that Victoria was wearing a skirt in the middle of winter, unbelievably, but then again you should see what some of the women down my area wear in winter (or don't).

More specifically to Codeguru's original comment, the cookie puzzle wasn't based on Victoria's agenda, but her grandmother's and father's.

We played through Still Life with the main intent of finding the identity of the killer, that was the most important thing. The story in this regard failed miserably because it took that reward away from us and we so doggedly worked hard for it.

I know I've made this comment dozens of times already, but I don't feel robbed one bit because I didn't find out who the killer was.

I get resolutions of who the killer is on plenty of murder mystery films, books, shows, etc, and they all fail miserably in entertaining me. For me, the enjoyment of Still Life were the characters met along the way and the atmosphere.


From time to time I still wonder about the old, homeless English guy in Prague, about that strange painting in the sewers, think of what the seedy, underground chambers was like under the baths in that luxurious building... Still Life has so much mystery surrounding so many of its plot componants. If everything were explained in major detail, I'd have nothing to think about after completing it.

Sorry if this sounds a bit to deep, but not everything in life gets a clear answer in the end, and I don't think stories in videogames should be any different.

I'm still worried about having the game being played in 3D. Mainly if the graphics will actually be any good. If it ends up looking like Resident Evil for the Gamecube, I'm more than up for it in 3D. But if it ends up looking like a medium budget game with bland locations, limited effects, poor animation, mediocre art design and little environment movement (the 3D Broken Swords spring to mind) then I'm going to be severely disappointed.

Because, like I say, I play my games for the entire journey, not just the ending.

[KriD]

I agree with you Terramax, on both the ending, and the turn to 3D.

I didn't feel robbed at all by the game not revealing the killer. As you say, countless games, movies and books does infact let you know who the killer is, so I think it's nice once in a while to not know who's dunnit, and then make up your own mind about who the killer is.

I also like to think that even the game developers themselves don't know who did it, and that everyone could decide which one they think it is, and no one would be right or wrong.:)

Regarding the game being in 3D: I'm a little worried about how the game is going to look. In my opinion, I have yet to see a 3d game that looks better than a 2d/2.5d game. But one time has got to be the first. No matter what, I'll have to upgrade my computer:P

But I assume it's still going to be third person and point & click??

[Terramax]

Well, we assume as most of the games Microids have done have been point and click. I wouldn't worry much if it were direct control. Doesn't seem like it'd affect the game in any way. Couldn't imagine Victoria running around shooting hordes of villains.

Then again, as this is 3D, and it could potentially mean having lots of lighting effects thanks to the nature of the game, this would possibly be an indication the company are looking to high-end, rig PC fanatic demographic than the lower-end, casual gaming PC one.

In other words, not a bloody clue.

[jcgamer60]

I read Qdream and kadja-kun's response for a sequel on a game called "Still Life" (which I never heard of until now).

It got good reviews so i decided to check it out and it was pretty damn good (despite the standard adventure game flaws). I can't remember the last time I played a game straight through :). Still Life was amazing, thank you so much guys!

So, apparently there is going to be a sequel? Using realtime 3D? :( I really despise 3d adventure games for the most part. The longest journey is my favourite adventure game, but the controls and camera in the sequel were too awful for me to enjoy.
Is anyone worried that its being made by a different company as well? I want a Still Life sequel, but I can't help but feel that I might be disappointed. Do any of you have any other recent adventure game recommendations? I think i've played through most of the older classics. And, I couldn't get into Syberia for some reason, so don't bother mentioning that.

[Terramax]

On the one hand I am worried it's by another team. Then again, I prefer Myst III & IV to the other installments; both of which were from different programmers to the original creators.

As for other recent games, how recent are you talking?

I'd recommend Sanitarium and Myst IV as they're the only recent adventures to really take me by surprise alongside Still Life.

[jcgamer60]

On the one hand I am worried it's by another team. Then again, I prefer Myst III & IV to the other installments; both of which were from different programmers to the original creators.

As for other recent games, how recent are you talking?

I'd recommend Sanitarium and Myst IV as they're the only recent adventures to really take me by surprise alongside Still Life.

I couldn't get into the first Myst, are the more recent installments a lot better? What makes the the more recent installments better, if you don't mind me asking? .And I was considering giving Sanitarium a try, although, the review for that game on this site is kind of low.

[Terramax]

I couldn't get into the first Myst, are the more recent installments a lot better? What makes the the more recent installments better, if you don't mind me asking? .And I was considering giving Sanitarium a try, although, the review for that game on this site is kind of low.

I'd advise to have a go at Myst III: Exile. More cinematic, 360degree view, locations more ambitions, the best soundtrack for a game I've ever encountered (and I own a few), puzzles have more variety and generally feels less punishing.

Wouldn't advise to play Myst IV straight away though. Dazzling game, but monstrously hard.

As for Sanitarium, I only bought this game about 9 months ago and it blew... me... away. It’s definitely in my top 3 favourite adventures. As others have agreed with me, the score for Sanitarium is a lot lower than it should be. It's exceptionally written, the story, while starting off straight forward, very quickly gets deeper and more unexpected with every turn, and the atmosphere is spot on. Highly recommended.

[jcgamer60]

I'd advise to have a go at Myst III: Exile. More cinematic, 360degree view, locations more ambitions, the best soundtrack for a game I've ever encountered (and I own a few), puzzles have more variety and generally feels less punishing.

Wouldn't advise to play Myst IV straight away though. Dazzling game, but monstrously hard.

As for Sanitarium, I only bought this game about 9 months ago and it blew... me... away. It’s definitely in my top 3 favourite adventures. As others have agreed with me, the score for Sanitarium is a lot lower than it should be. It's exceptionally written, the story, while starting off straight forward, very quickly gets deeper and more unexpected with every turn, and the atmosphere is spot on. Highly recommended.

Well you've just sold me on Myst III and Sanitarium. I'll definitely give these games a try next.

Quick question.
With Still Life 2 being real-time 3d and all, in your opinion will my 2ghz laptop be able to run it? I can't keep up with PC gaming due to the ridiculously high standards of newer games. The reason I'm asking is because i'm not too familiar with adventure games in full 3d. Do developers of adventure games still keep in mind that most people who play these type of games don't have high end PCs?

[Terramax]

Well this is the biggie question for all adventure gamers IMO.

If Still Life 2 is to be targetted at the adventure game fan market, I suspect the graphics won't be too powerful. Also, as Microids aren't the biggest game developers around, I wouldn't expect they could afford a graphics engine that excels much further than Dreamfall: TLC or Fahrenheit/ Indigo Prohacy. But that's an educated guess.

However, if Still Life 2 is to be targetted mainly at the home console market/ high end PC fanatics (Still Life was released on the Xbox so I wouldn't rule this idea out) then maybe we could be looking at something quite ambitious.

As for whether you computer could hack it, I'd have to ask what graphic card you have? If you don't know how to find out, if you're using windows, go to 'run' on the startup screen, type in 'dxdiag' and that should tell you somewhere.

Mind you, you'd be surprised what older PCs can achieve with the right drivers downloaded.

[jcgamer60]

Its a Geforce Go 6100.

[Melanie68]

It seems a tad premature to ask about PC specs. All you can do is wait and see what they post about them instead of trying to guess what you might need for a graphics card. ;)

[Kate Walker]

The first screenshots are out since Thursday:
http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=52935

[Shany]

Finally.
I have to say they're better than I expected. The level of detail is very good.
But - it lacks atmosphere. It feels bland. Hopefully these aren't the final screenshots.

[Terramax]

Finally.
I have to say they're better than I expected. The level of detail is very good.
But - it lacks atmosphere. It feels bland. Hopefully these aren't the final screenshots.

Agreed on both accounts. That outside shot of the house looks perfect (police car looks a little out of place though). Here's hoping some lighting effects and extra clutter will bring out more of that grainy atmosphere you speak of for the inside shots.

Finally, I can say I'm no longer worried with how the 3D aspect of the game. These guys know what they're doing. Now all we need to do is worry about the story delivering.

And all though I'm skeptical of the November release date, if it is out by then, that's not that long to wait at all.

[jcgamer60]

I'm not sure how I feel about the game after seeing these screenshots. I agree the interior looks a bit bland. Also, is this game going to be played in first or 3rd person? I like being able to see the character from a 3rd person perspective, but this can also be a problem due to camera issues in realtime 3D.

Anyway, I hope it turns out alright, but I will always prefer pre-rendered graphics for adventure games, or at least a fixed camera perspective. This is why I'm happy with the way Gray Matter is coming along.

A personal nitpick I have is the lighting of the outdoor environment. I actually liked the dark atmosphere of the Chicago streets in the first Still Life better. Even as playing from the other persons perspective in the first Still Life I found the colors of the prerendered backgrounds help give a unique feel for the time period.

Well, these are only 4 screenshots and I'm still looking forward to the final product later this year (just hope I can run it with my specs).

[Risingson]

I can't understand something (oh, hello again!). If you are looking forward a sequel of a movie like, say, Terminator, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, whatever, you look for the names. You check if the director has some experience in the genre, if the actors match, if the scriptwriter has done anything good in the past, if there is a producer that not only worries about making lots of cash.

Why don't we do the same with videogames? I mean: Still Life 2. Great. Now, who is behind this game? Is it the same people that brought to us Syberia 2 or Still Life? No. Is there just anyone who was responsible of the first Still Life? No. Have those people any experience with adventures? No. Then, why are we talking about it as if it was made by the same people?

[jcgamer60]

I can't understand something (oh, hello again!). If you are looking forward a sequel of a movie like, say, Terminator, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, whatever, you look for the names. You check if the director has some experience in the genre, if the actors match, if the scriptwriter has done anything good in the past, if there is a producer that not only worries about making lots of cash.

Why don't we do the same with videogames? I mean: Still Life 2. Great. Now, who is behind this game? Is it the same people that brought to us Syberia 2 or Still Life? No. Is there just anyone who was responsible of the first Still Life? No. Have those people any experience with adventures? No. Then, why are we talking about it as if it was made by the same people?

I've been a die hard gamer for years and I agree with you 100%. I was unaware, though, that this sequel doesn't have any of the key memebers from the first game. Now i'm even more worried.

[MoonBird]

Those new screens don't look like realtime 3D to me

[Terramax]

I can't understand something (oh, hello again!). If you are looking forward a sequel of a movie like, say, Terminator, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, whatever, you look for the names. You check if the director has some experience in the genre, if the actors match, if the scriptwriter has done anything good in the past, if there is a producer that not only worries about making lots of cash.

Why don't we do the same with videogames? I mean: Still Life 2. Great. Now, who is behind this game? Is it the same people that brought to us Syberia 2 or Still Life? No. Is there just anyone who was responsible of the first Still Life? No. Have those people any experience with adventures? No. Then, why are we talking about it as if it was made by the same people?

I think pointed this out earlier--

On the one hand I am worried it's by another team. Then again, I prefer Myst III & IV to the other installments; both of which were from different programmers to the original creators.


Personally, my only fear now is if the writing credits to Still Life 2 will be the same person who wrote the original Still Life (Mathieu Larivière if MobyGames is to be believed).

I don't suppose there's information to confirm this?

[Risingson]

But, again, Terramax, the people behind Myst 3 and Myst 4 had some experience in games and adventures earlier, didn't they? Myst 3 was made by the people that made Journeyman Project games, and the Ubi Soft people that made Myst 4 were from different enviroments, but experienced anyway. Now tell me where the people that are making "Still Life 2" come from, these "consultants", as the company name says.

That's what I am afraid of. Consultants. I wouldn't be that afraid if I weren't one.

[Terramax]

That's what I am afraid of. Consultants. I wouldn't be that afraid if I weren't one.

ROFL well I can't argue with that!

If I'm correct, the programmers of Myst IV worked on a Tom Clancy game previously. A team specialising in producing an action stealth franchise that feeds on the paranoia of America VS the other. Although I understand, due to the major shift in genre, a good 50+ extra members were employed, many of which were experiences in adventure games or those genres similar. Ubisoft understood they needed those experienced in their field.

I guess we don't know who these consultants are, but may I ask you; all those 'experienced' adventure game programmers, surely they had to gain their experience somewhere?

[QDream]

damn those screenshots look nowhere near as good as I expected. :( :(

anyway I can't wait for this game :P

[Invader Zim]

They look horrible. The only good screenshot is the portrait of Victoria, and that one comes from the first game :shifty:

Still, I hope the cutscenes will make up for the entire game (as they did in Still Life 1)

[Thesaya]

And the closeup screens...
I still have the girl in the bathtub as my desktop.
Yes, I am a twisted morbid person.

I like the dead girl!

And god, I hope the next screens to be released will look a whole lot better...

[QDream]

but seriously what da hell they been thinking? the first screens have to look the best because they create the first impression about the game and they come up with this? I just don't get it ..

[rtrooney]

>I have to say they're better than I expected.

Expectations must have been quite low.

[Terramax]

but seriously what da hell they been thinking? the first screens have to look the best because they create the first impression about the game and they come up with this? I just don't get it ..

Maybe the 'best' locations haven't been programmed yet?

After all, the game hasn't been completed.

Then you have to consider how much information they wish to give. Perhaps giving the 'best' screenshots would give away too much of the plot? Etc.

[Kate Walker]

First teaser:
http://www.pcgames.de/aid,648267/Video/Adventure/Atmosphaerischer_Teaser-Trailer_zum_Krimi-Adventure_Still_Life_2/

[Shany]

Expectations must have been quite low.

Why yes, they have been. Still Life was in 2.5D and it was beautiful and atmospheric - there's no way they could recreate that in 3D.

The teaser seems to confirm what the screenshots show. This will be one bland game.

[Se7en]

I think pointed this out earlier--



Personally, my only fear now is if the writing credits to Still Life 2 will be the same person who wrote the original Still Life (Mathieu Larivière if MobyGames is to be believed).

I don't suppose there's information to confirm this?

I assure you, I didn't write the sequel to Still Life. The real sequel will probably never come to pass and for that I’m sorry (trust me, I would love to). I guess the killer will go unpunished…
That doesn’t mean that Still Life 2 will stink. You never know until you play the game.

[jcgamer60]

I assure you, I didn't write the sequel to Still Life. The real sequel will probably never come to pass and for that I’m sorry (trust me, I would love to). I guess the killer will go unpunished…
That doesn’t mean that Still Life 2 will stink. You never know until you play the game.

Oh, man that sucks. Great job on the story in the original, though.

[Terramax]

Why yes, they have been. Still Life was in 2.5D and it was beautiful and atmospheric - there's no way they could recreate that in 3D.

You've obviously not played Silent Hill 2 + 3 or Project Zero 2?


The teaser seems to confirm what the screenshots show. This will be one bland game.

Compared to what? What is it about the teaser that's bland? Can you be more specific?

I assure you, I didn't write the sequel to Still Life. The real sequel will probably never come to pass and for that I’m sorry (trust me, I would love to). I guess the killer will go unpunished…
That doesn’t mean that Still Life 2 will stink. You never know until you play the game.

Thanks for clearing that up. That is indeed a shame. However, as you mention, the game still has yet to prove itself. If that answer's good enough for you, it's good enough for me.

[Lacrima]

(Although I haven't posted in a while, Still Life always draws me back; I guess there is no title I'm more passionate about than this one.)

Terramax, the teaser looks bland, cause... compare it with what Still Life (the original) started out with. I didn't follow the game from the first announcement on, but once I had heard from it, I devoured every piece of information there was (it was actually shortly before the demo release), and the teasers were much more engaging. There is hardly any video game that can match with the cinematics of Still Life, in my opinion, and the teasers really delivered this intense atmosphere that was preserved throughout the game. The quick footage with the amazing music managed to give you an inkling of what the game was about, and they just had style. Yes, even those 30 second pieces. This one, if you look at the comments of the given link of the teaser, reminds people apparently of movies like "Saw". Ahum... I don't need another serial killer, I don't need ****ing survival horror, I want to explore what was to explore about the original serial killer, because I think there is a lot more to tell. This also makes me doubt how they can pull off the reveal of the original killer's identity and solve a new mystery.
But... they DO know the originally planned storyline, don't they? I mean, it's not like some guys just re-invented a mystery based upon the clues given by the first game?

Anyways, I kind of gave up hope for the sequel. The screens don't look awful, but they certainly look below average, the teaser doesn't make a terrible impression, but it certainly isn't exciting. And if the original writer isn't involved, then I am not really interested. There's just not the anticipation I felt with the first one. What I'll get out of the sequel will basically be an explanation of what was behind the original, and even that part is doubtful. Sad, sad day. (Yes, there might still be a good game behind Still Life 2, but there isn't really a Still Life 2 behind the game.)

[Se7en]

Oh, man that sucks. Great job on the story in the original, though.

Thanks! :D

[Quadriflax]

Thanks! :D

Can I ask you how you would have ended the original if it hadn't needed to be somewhat rushed to completion? Who was the killer in your version? I know there were supposed to be two different endings, but I'm curious as to who it was behind the murders in the original canon.

I understand if that's not a question you're willing/able to answer, but I had to ask :)

[QDream]

Am I the only one who liked the trailer? It was so disturbing and set the tone for the game perfectly.. A great rebound from lackluster screenshots..

Reminded me of movie Saw :P


and P.S. - can we really take that guy's 'Se7en' word for it that he's indeed a writer for the original Still Life?

[Dale Baldwin]

and P.S. - can we really take that guy's 'Se7en' word for it that he's indeed a writer for the original Still Life?
Yes, you 100% can. Of course, you're going to have to take my word for that.

[kadji-kun]

Why yes, they have been. Still Life was in 2.5D and it was beautiful and atmospheric - there's no way they could recreate that in 3D.

The teaser seems to confirm what the screenshots show. This will be one bland game.

Well that's a lie and you know it. If you guys had awesome computers, we wouldn't be facing a problem with absolutely ugly graphics. I feel that today's real time 3d graphics look more natural than prerendered environments.

[Terramax]

This one, if you look at the comments of the given link of the teaser, reminds people apparently of movies like "Saw". Ahum... I don't need another serial killer, I don't need ****ing survival horror, I want to explore what was to explore about the original serial killer, because I think there is a lot more to tell. This also makes me doubt how they can pull off the reveal of the original killer's identity and solve a new mystery.

Whoa! Who mentioned anything about a survival horror? If you're referring to my mention of Silent Hill, that was regarding graphics and atmosphere in a 3D environment.

As for being reminded of Saw, let me remind you there's plenty stories riding on the idea of someone trapped/ secrets in a basement at a house in the middle of nowhere (Psycho, Misery).

As for multiple murderers, we were uncovering 2 separate murder cases in the first Still Life. What's the difference with this installment? In fact, I personally think a sequel that has just loose ends to tie up from the first with nothing new broght to the table is in danger of becoming a very shallow one.

You speak as if this new production team have not thought about what would make a good story for a murder mystery game. Understand that, even though this is from a new team, they have got experience and are paid to do a job properly. I honestly can't imagine Microids have just thrown a dart at a board full of random developers and said 'Yep, they'll do, no questions asked'.

I've not seen the trailer to the Saw films, although I've seen the first film, so I can understand where you're coming here, but on the same judgement I've found major parallels to the original Still Life and the film 'The Bone Collector' in terms of both story and atmosphere. So if you're insinuating Still Life 2 is to be a mere copy/ rip-off of a film, I'd challenge the original game on the same grounds.

But if Still Life managed to pull off surprises of its own despite a similar concept, I don’t see why we can’t give Still Life 2 the chance to prove itself.


Anyways, I kind of gave up hope for the sequel. The screens don't look awful, but they certainly look below average, the teaser doesn't make a terrible impression, but it certainly isn't exciting. And if the original writer isn't involved, then I am not really interested.


Well it is indeed a shame that you've been put off of buying a game merely because of 4 possible work-in-progress screenshots and a 30 second teaser trailer. And as for the original writer, aren't I correct that Still Life had a different writer from that of the prequel to that game, Post Mortem?

On that grounds, again, I'd argue you're points are hypocritical in that Still Life managed to pull off a great story and atmosphere despite riding on the back of a previous game of other writers/ developers.

I personally can’t see a difference between the screens of inside the house for SL2 and that of the first building in the first game. They look like almost exact replicas.


There's just not the anticipation I felt with the first one. What I'll get out of the sequel will basically be an explanation of what was behind the original, and even that part is doubtful. Sad, sad day. (Yes, there might still be a good game behind Still Life 2, but there isn't really a Still Life 2 behind the game.)


Well I think it's quite narrow-minded how people are only willing to play Still Life 2 merely to find out who the killer is, and not to enjoy playing through a Still Life game once again.

There's a new co-main character that’ll bring a whole new perspective and lets not forget this will be an all new chapter in Victoria's life in her new job as a private I.

A story is not merely told for its conclusion, but as much the experience along the way. If all you really only want to know who the killer is and nothing else, then you really are better off not buying the game, and just asking someone who has played the game to PM you the name of the killer, and you can get on with something else instead.

But the way I honestly see it, as I’ve not seen any proper in-game footage, read little information on what the designers’ are aiming for, who their target audience are, what they’re planning to achieve, I find it still too early to pass too much criticism.

When Still Life was released, people moaned about the ending. But I didn’t. I enjoyed it for the conversations it drew afterwards.

Then the sequel was dropped and yet more moaning from people. Still, even though SL is definitely in my top 5 adventures, I wasn’t too fussed. I enjoyed the game enough to accept I always had at least that game to take with me.

Now that the sequel has been announced and there will be the naming of the killer, I personally can’t help but think among the lines of ‘you’ve got your cake, now eat it!’

Am I the only one who liked the trailer? It was so disturbing and set the tone for the game perfectly.. A great rebound from lackluster screenshots..

Reminded me of movie Saw :P


On the contrary to those above, I really enjoyed the trailer also. As the story is partially about the kidnapped journalist, I find it completely relevant to the game’s story. Slightly clichéd, yes, but then again what isn’t these days?


and P.S. - can we really take that guy's 'Se7en' word for it that he's indeed a writer for the original Still Life?

You do have a point there.

[Melanie68]

Please stop questioning Se7en's identity. He has visited this forum before and he was indeed the writer for Still Life as Dale has already mentioned (on the previous page).

We had this fruitless argument with someone else when Se7en first visited the forum and I don't want to have it again. Thanks.

[jcgamer60]

Well it is indeed a shame that you've been put off of buying a game merely because of 4 possible work-in-progress screenshots and a 30 second teaser trailer. And as for the original writer, aren't I correct that Still Life had a different writer from that of the prequel to that game, Post Mortem?


Did Post Mortem have such a cliffhanger ending, though?
Just curious.

[Lacrima]

Terramax: Depending on whether they are playing the victim being hunted by the killer (Paloma Hernandez) or the FBI agent tracking him down (Victoria McPherson), gamers can alternate between survival and investigation.
source: http://www.microids.com/en/press/9/microids-to-release-still-life-sequel.html

That sounds very survival horror to me, plus the fact that they simply aren't trying to stick to the original in many ways.

As for being reminded of Saw, let me remind you there's plenty stories riding on the idea of someone trapped/ secrets in a basement at a house in the middle of nowhere (Psycho, Misery).
My mentioning people thinking of Saw when seeing this was based on fact. There are some people that are reminded of Saw, and Still Life isn't supposed to remind people of Saw, in my opinion. My post was a lot about the impression the design philosophy left on me, and this was just a part of my criticism.
First, they apparently dropped the original team completely, not involving them.
Second, they change the basics of the game from 2.5D to 3D, AND apparently desire to include action sequences (I might be interpreting the news wrong, but I don't think so, considering how they stray from the original).
Third, they want to make a series of games out of the title, instead of telling that one story Still Life was about; which I think is the worst. Why not just invent a new series, on their own? If they did that, I'd be happy and without any complaints about this; I wouldn't complain about the atmosphere of the teaser, I wouldn't complain about the graphics, nothing. But no, they are exploiting the interest in the first game. I would understand the need to introduce a new case into a sequel of the original, as long as it still focused on the original's case and had the original writer. I understand how sales are better, if people new to the series aren't put off by it. But making a series out of it, as has never been planned, and putting the focus on so many different aspects is just not what I'd call a true sequel to Still Life.

So if you're insinuating Still Life 2 is to be a mere copy/ rip-off of a film, I'd challenge the original game on the same grounds.
No, I'm absolutely not. I was just saying that to make my point that the game is going into an altogether different direction I don't want and I don't understand. And I, of course, admit that it's speculative, that it's premature, though I think the signs are clear that this one is not aimed at being a worthy successor - as imagined by, for instance, Larivière, OR the fans.

And as for the original writer, aren't I correct that Still Life had a different writer from that of the prequel to that game, Post Mortem?

On that grounds, again, I'd argue you're points are hypocritical in that Still Life managed to pull off a great story and atmosphere despite riding on the back of a previous game of other writers/ developers.
I'm sorry, but this argument just doesn't hold.
Post Mortem was a stand-alone title. Still Life was a stand-alone title, until some day, some person suggested "Hey, lets make a connection between the games!". Development of Still Life was already on-going, before it become a Spin-Off to Post Mortem, as far as I know (I'm sorry, I won't search for the source of this information, but it is on the internet, in some interview, and I'm sure of its validity).
Not only this, but Still Life also just tells a completely different story, with a completely new cast of characters, some decades after Post Mortem, which is enough to detach it from that title.
I assure you, there is no hypocrisy in my statement, since Still Life was not riding on any game's back. Plus, Post Mortem and Still Life had some staff members in common.

Well I think it's quite narrow-minded how people are only willing to play Still Life 2 merely to find out who the killer is, and not to enjoy playing through a Still Life game once again.
Then you ignored my original message. I am willing to play Still Life 2 to see what kind of game it is, but you can't imagine what hopes I had for the continuation of this original title that hooked me through and through.
Still Life was, in my opinion, such a special gem of a game. The first time I heard from it, I was blown-away, and in the end, the game exceeded every single one of my expectations. The story was exactly what I wanted, the art was incredibly amazing, the writing was - I think - excellent (hah, memorable moments like the confrontations between Gus and the police officer; "Then I guess the only difference is that my clients have character and honesty."), and the cinematics just rounded the experience up. To me, this game managed exactly what it was supposed to as a game, using visuals, audio and gameplay to tell its story in a way that is almost never done that way. I don't know why Still Life wasn't a commercial success, or is heavily disliked by some (just because of some cookie puzzle and an ending that wasn't bad?), but it was an outstanding title and ever will be.
Back to Still Life 2 - it won't be that game, lets be honest. It can't be. As long as there aren't the key figures behind the first game involved, and if they betray the values of the original, I will be disappointed, and every piece of information I got of Still Life 2 points in that direction.
What it can become is a good game, but it can't become a good sequel, and they aren't even trying to make it a good sequel, as far as I can see.

A story is not merely told for its conclusion, but as much the experience along the way. If all you really only want to know who the killer is and nothing else, then you really are better off not buying the game, and just asking someone who has played the game to PM you the name of the killer, and you can get on with something else instead.
I hope you see now how wrong you saw my original post and I don't have to comment on this further...?

I was so happy when I heard there was a sequel to this game, although a little anxious about who would make the sequel, etc. Now, I just am not excited anymore, and actually rather angry. We will never see the true sequel, and I would rather have the series unspoiled and no answer, than an answer by people that re-interpret the original. They should have left their hands off of the game if they couldn't get the same people back on board and continue the vision that made Still Life work so well. (And that's why I originally said how sad a day it was)

[Igor]

>>the teaser looks bland<<

Of course it looks bland- there are no characters in it :P It looks more like 3d engine show-case (and quite capable one, as far as i'm concerned).
Can't people wait for some actual in-game screenshots and teasers before starting to complain?

[QDream]

Please stop questioning Se7en's identity. He has visited this forum before and he was indeed the writer for Still Life as Dale has already mentioned (on the previous page).

We had this fruitless argument with someone else when Se7en first visited the forum and I don't want to have it again. Thanks.

no problemo, good to get a confirmation from a mod :)

but if the sequel isn't written by the same person as the original then what relevancy does the identity of the killer have?

[Risingson]

Can I ask you how you would have ended the original if it hadn't needed to be somewhat rushed to completion? Who was the killer in your version? I know there were supposed to be two different endings, but I'm curious as to who it was behind the murders in the original canon.

I understand if that's not a question you're willing/able to answer, but I had to ask :)

Can I ask why people that was obviously experimenting hard and learning from errors, and that made a such good adventure as Still Life, aren't working in this field together no more? :'(

[Gazzoid]

I'm also a bit sceptical about this sequel. But then i am normally, whenever sequels, prequels, tie-ins or remakes are made of movies or games. Most sequels of movies for example, are usually pants in comparison to the originals, or they're over-the-top, the stories are crap or it doesn't have that 'special something' the originals have etc.

The fact that the same team, as the first Still Life game, aren't involved (esp. the writers) makes me even more worried. But, i'll still give it a whirl when it comes out but i'm not expecting too much. Like i always say: 'if you expect anything, you'll be greatly disppointed.' Like with the new Indiana Jones movie - some things are just better left alone imo.

[Terramax]

That sounds very survival horror to me, plus the fact that they simply aren't trying to stick to the original in many ways.

I think you’ve taken it out of context. I’m guessing it’s referring to the fact that in terms of the story, one of the characters you’ll be playing will be fighting for their survival but not literally YOU fighting their survival (as in running around shooting things and conserving ammunition, Resident Evil style).

Of course, both of us are guessing at this stage.

My mentioning people thinking of Saw when seeing this was based on fact. There are some people that are reminded of Saw, and Still Life isn't supposed to remind people of Saw, in my opinion. My post was a lot about the impression the design philosophy left on me, and this was just a part of my criticism.

Yes, but like I mentioned, I was heavily reminded of ‘The Bone Collector’ throughout Still Life, yet this did not detract me from my enjoyment of the game. I can see how relating a teaser to another trailer can cause a small lack of faith but I wouldn't dismiss a game completely because of a 30 second trailer.

Second, they change the basics of the game from 2.5D to 3D, AND apparently desire to include action sequences (I might be interpreting the news wrong, but I don't think so, considering how they stray from the original).

Well, Still Life had an action event at least towards of the end (the robot penetrating secret files).

I understand action events aren’t particularly liked with some adventure gamers, so I can understand you’re personal misgivings on this, but as I’m not one of them, I wouldn’t suspect this is going to break the game for everyone.

As kadji-kun said, just because 3D won't work for you, it doesn't mean it won't work for everyone. In an earlier thread regarding this game, I was dead against 3D also. But after I saw the screens, I ate my words. I take back all the hostility I had against 3D. This team exceeded my personal expectations. Which is why I continue to have faith in them.

I understand how sales are better, if people new to the series aren't put off by it. But making a series out of it, as has never been planned, and putting the focus on so many different aspects is just not what I'd call a true sequel to Still Life.

Remember Still Life was always intended to be a series. Still Life is a second part of what was potentially to be a trilogy.
And who are we to know, maybe Se7en & co were planning to include a new murder plot in Still Life 2 anyway. If that were the case, would you still be complaining? And how exactly do you know there are so many different aspects?

they want to make a series of games out of the title, instead of telling that one story Still Life was about; which I think is the worst. Why not just invent a new series, on their own? If they did that, I'd be happy and without any complaints about this. But no, they are exploiting the interest in the first game. I would understand the need to introduce a new case into a sequel of the original, as long as it still focused on the original's case and had the original writer.

Lets not forget that Still Life isn’t just about a murder mystery, but the characters themselves. Most particularly Victoria McPherson. As the game includes her, I wouldn’t say this game was explicitly “exploiting the interest in the first game” or should need to be a different franchise. This is the most logical reason why it’s branded the sequel.

And why change the title because the main story is different? What did Broken Sword 2 have to do with the 1st game? Not a templar in sight. There's other examples.

Some stories are not even about the main characters either, but about the morals and messages they send out. If Still Life 2 has a different story but emphasis is still on all the notions of insanity through art, the preying of prostitutes and other supposed ‘low lives’ of gritty society, it could still be a worthy sequel.

As I’ve pointed out to many, just because we didn’t find out who the killer was in Still Life, doesn’t mean there was not a resolution to the original story anyways. Speak for yourself, but I could go on with a new story without reference to the first and still consider it a sequel.

Writers to stories in video games are not always the sole 'owner' or 'creator'. Sometimes they're hired on board after the main plotline/ structure, characters have been created. Larivière did play an important role as the writer, but just because of his disengagement from this project doesn’t mean the essence of Still Life is completely lost.

I'd use the Silent Hill franchise as a perfect case study. Many of the original members of the first game left Konami soon afterwards and worked on Forbidden Siren.

An almost completely new team worked on Silent Hill 2 & 3 and ended up making the best two games of the series so far (by unanimous vote).
And SH3 had everything to do with the 1st game, despite being 18 years later, staring a completely new cast.

It's still too early to pass judgement that this is not going to be a worthy successor. We've not played this game. We’ve not enough information to make a definite decision.

I was just saying that to make my point that the game is going into an altogether different direction I don't want and I don't understand. And I, of course, admit that it's speculative, that it's premature, though I think the signs are clear that this one is not aimed at being a worthy successor - as imagined by, for instance, Larivière, OR the fans.

Fair game, it’s not the direction you or Lariviere wanted, but that doesn’t mean ALL fans loathe the direction. This is my point.

I have great admiration for sequels/ artists who attempt new directions. Obviously on the contrary to you, I dislike sequels that give more of the same thing. I enjoy sequels that elaborate or explore different directions. I’m as much a hard person to please as you. In fact, I’m very fussy when it comes to sequels of anything I immensely enjoy. And it’s usually because nothing new is brought to the table.

You’re disheartening of something new is my excitement.

I'm sorry, but this argument just doesn't hold.
Post Mortem was a stand-alone title. Still Life was a stand-alone title, until some day, some person suggested "Hey, lets make a connection between the games!". Development of Still Life was already on-going, before it become a Spin-Off to Post Mortem, as far as I know.

Regardless if it was decided at a later date to connect the two titles, the end product of Still Life is that it is a sequel to Post Mortem. They are both connected by the protagonists of the two stories. End of story.


Not only this, but Still Life also just tells a completely different story, with a completely new cast of characters, some decades after Post Mortem, which is enough to detach it from that title.


Well, I’ve already argued a different murder mystery or different characters doesn’t make it a ‘different story’.

What about the Star Wars films? Two different time periods, different heroes and villains. Same series/ franchise?

Then you ignored my original message. I am willing to play Still Life 2 to see what kind of game it is, but you can't imagine what hopes I had for the continuation of this original title that hooked me through and through.
Still Life was, in my opinion, such a special gem of a game. The first time I heard from it, I was blown-away, and in the end, the game exceeded every single one of my expectations. The story was exactly what I wanted, the art was incredibly amazing, the writing was - I think - excellent and the cinematics just rounded the experience up. Back to Still Life 2 - it won't be that game, lets be honest. It can't be. As long as there aren't the key figures behind the first game involved, and if they betray the values of the original, I will be disappointed, and every piece of information I got of Still Life 2 points in that direction.

OK, I admit, I partially misunderstood what you were getting at before. It is a shame you don’t immediately feel excited about SL2 as you did the first. My argument is this game could still be everything you hoped for, as there is not enough information to prove otherwise.

What I was getting at with my comment is, 4 screens and a trailer do not show you exactly everything the game has to offer.

-You could still get the cinematics you got from the first.
-You could still get the well told story you got from the first.
-You could even get all the answers you asked after the first game. Maybe not in the direct way you’re hoping. But there isn’t enough information for you to believe otherwise!

It’s too early to suggest they’re going to “betray the values of the first one”.

[Terramax]

What it can become is a good game, but it can't become a good sequel, and they aren't even trying to make it a good sequel, as far as I can see.

You cannot say this won’t become a good sequel if you’ve not played it and not even experience any more than 4 screenshots, a teaser and some news clippings you’ve read from some websites!

There are plenty of franchises that use different writers, stories, characters etc, throughout their history and yet the sequels are still considered sequels. I don’t see how a different writer/ production team for Still Life betrays this rule.

(And that's why I originally said how sad a day it was)

My anger is the way I read this/ these posts, you imply this is a sad day for everyone.

I argue that I’m incredibly excited about this game, and others are too. So fair enough, you’re not excited, and this game probably won’t entertain you. But don’t go posting like you can speak for everyone here. It’s not a sad day for everyone. This might still be a terrific sequel for other people. Your words and views on this game are not gospel.

You can argue this game might fail as a true sequel. But you cannot say this game is or will be a failure as a true sequel.

[Lacrima]

Yes, but like I mentioned, I was heavily reminded of ‘The Bone Collector’ throughout Still Life, yet this did not detract me from my enjoyment of the game. I can see how relating a teaser to another trailer can cause a small lack of faith but I wouldn't dismiss a game completely because of a 30 second trailer.
It is not the fact that the game reminds me of something, it is the fact what the game reminds me of. And don't take my statements out of context, please; I don't dismiss the game because of 30 seconds, I don't dismiss the game at all, I just dismiss the game as a sequel to that game I love, and I critisize it for apparently not trying to be. I stated why I have the impression that Still Life 2 is not meant to be a true sequel twice now, it is the sum of things, not just one fact alone. I also stated how this game might work on its own, and I hate repeating myself, but I just as well said why I have so little hope for a successor to Still Life. Mathieu Larivière, the man himself, posted here, and stated how he wasn't involved, and how a different studio is just trying to continue his work, while it is his work I wanted.

Well, Still Life had an action event at least towards of the end (the robot penetrating secret files).
That was not at all action.
Plus, I love action, I am ALL for the adventure genre finally developing, and evolving. To me, games are there to tell a story with all the tools of the trade; visuals, audio, interaction. Adventures shouldn't be bound by conservative restrictions, and if a game designer feels the need to include action, then that is his choice, and completely justified. If Ragnar Tornquist felt Dreamfall needed combat and stealth, nothing should prevent him implementing it - and it didn't. Dreamfall is only a bad example because it was trying to make a compromise, and compromises don't work in game design.
It is also not the action per se I would mind in a Still Life sequel, but I raised the point, because it is again part of the sum why I am currently heart-broken concerning this sequel. The design philosophy is entirely different. The developers are new to the series, and overthrow every one of its principles, and I am afraid they won't grasp what made Still Life so amazing. And I dislike the emphasis they put on the ability to play as Hernandez and run from the killer, etc. It is guess work, nobody knows how it will turn out, I know, but I also know that this isn't what Still Life was about.

As kadji-kun said, just because 3D won't work for you, it doesn't mean it won't work for everyone.
3D will work great for me. I love 3D. 3D allows for new, progressive gameplay, and - if one had the budget - would have allowed for amazing visuals. I just stated the change in the context with what Still Life was, and how they digress from it. It is dangerous to change everything the game was about, if you are new to the series, and those are indications - as I said - as to how this game isn't trying to become the sequel to Still Life many of those passionate about the first game wanted. I should mention again here that this is guess work and only a part of the sum why I feel anxious about the game, so it isn't grasped out of context again.

Remember Still Life was always intended to be a series. Still Life is a second part of what was potentially to be a trilogy.
And who are we to know, maybe Se7en & co were planning to include a new murder plot in Still Life 2 anyway. If that were the case, would you still be complaining? And how exactly do you know there are so many different aspects?
We are the ones that read those forums, so we can know how Se7en planned this whole part in L.A., yadda-yadda. Look up Se7en's profile, and then his post history; you'll find a thread where he indicated of how Still Life was supposed to continue. Not with a new killer in Maine, but with a continuation in L.A.
This is also where the link between the murderers was supposed to be explained, and this is one of the thousands of hints of why I think there was a lot behind those killings. Still Life is written like any good murder mystery; there are subtle clues galore. It isn't explained how and why every prostitute is linked to St. Drogo's orphanage in Prague, and why there is the common link in Prague, as well as the common link in the Red Lantern, present day - this is most probably no coincidence, yet one of the mysteries of Still Life. It isn't explained why Microids introduced Lombartech and the Labyrinth Foundation in the Still Life: Prelude, subtly showed Lombartech in the game, and bought the websites, probably for an ARG. The entries in the Prelude-Database (Marian Ackerman (I think her name was), for instance) are still a mystery. The behavior and secret of Vladana remain a mystery. I think there would have been enough content to cover in a sequel, it could also have explored the personal aspects mentioned in the game (I mean Samantha, or the apparently painful past of Patrick McPherson), it wouldn't have needed to introduce a new killer, and according to Se7en, it wouldn't have done so.

What did Broken Sword 2 have to do with the 1st game?
Charles Cecil. One major point. Another major point is that Broken Sword 1 didn't require a sequel. Still Life "1" requires a sequel, because Larivière always wanted to tell his story completely. I hope you see this major difference.
I also am well aware of how the characters were important in Still Life, they are one of the reasons I loved the game (and god was I overwhelmed emotionally when Ackerman killed Ida and her child), but what good are they if someone else is writing them?

Speak for yourself, but I could go on with a new story without reference to the first and still consider it a sequel.
But you are omitting everything else the game was about that can be lost in the sequel. Still Life was great because of its art - but art doesn't seem to factor into the new story, does it? The killer is no artist, the killer is no Ackerman, so this beautiful aspect that ran throughout Still Life like a brand that made it original and enhanced the experience is most probably gone. It would be weird if the Torturer was an artist, too. Then, the experience of the story during two different periods, this unique aspect, gathering clues in Prague, a complete change of pace, that could still be relevant in Chicago present day, and vice versa. Only because you can still play two characters, it certainly isn't the same. Then there were the amazing characters and cinematics, etc., in Still Life.
Everything of this is done by other people - so yeah, I would enjoy a sequel by the same team that made Still Life, because they obviously knew what they were doing and were a perfect team, and I could live without the reveal of the original game's killer, although I wouldn't want to, but a sequel by another team that isn't picking up where the original left off ruins every chance of what Larivière wanted. And what Larivière wanted is what I wanted. And the fact that this vision is, indisputably, ruined is what angers me. AGAIN, I am not saying the vision the new team has is bad, but it just DOES destroy the hopes of what I was just talking about, and that is bad enough for me. I hope you understand my point here.

You’re disheartening of something new is my excitement.
(I take this quote as representative of a bulk of your latter post)
But you apparently don't see the difference. The original team is gone, and the project wasn't finished. Silent Hill, Broken Sword, what-not; those were games that were done with what they wanted to be done with. Still Life isn't, and now never will be. I mentioned Dreamfall: I loved that game, even though it was nothing like the Longest Journey. As long as the sequel is still good, I don't complain, but Still Life more than any of these titles needed the input of those that worked on the original, because it was so very special and just - not - done.
The same applies to your false reasoning concerning Post Mortem. I don't mind another writer picking up the character of Gus McPherson, but I don't mind, because Gus' story in Post Mortem was finished and didn't need reinventing. I wouldn't mind if anyone wrote a PREQUEL to Still Life where she was in Maine, hunting that torturer. Gameco could do what they wanted in that time period. I appreciate the effort to give closure to the fans of Still Life by giving us a sequel, and understand the compromise to introduce a new mystery, but why couldn't they just stick with the original team or not do it at all? In the end, it is no compromise if the original team can't finish their vision, in the end it is exploitation of a franchise. Exploitation sounds very evil, I know, but it doesn't automatically mean "bad!" in terms of quality, just "bad!" in terms of character.

And I agree that this judgement is premature, AS I SAID, but I know what business and marketing are, and all those choices seem to aim at limiting artistic freedom and making money. These changes don't feel like genuine intuition by the game designers, but like market analysis to not create a second commercial failure. On the list of common complaints for failing games: "Not 3D?" - Check. "Not enough action?" - Check. "Not a sequel?" - Check. "Something very original?" - Check.

to be continued...

[Lacrima]

you imply this is a sad day for everyone.
I think it IS a sad day for everyone that had expectations like me, that wanted the original team involved and hoped for just that sequel I was expecting if there ever was a sequel (a hope I clung to forever). And I still believe it will be a bad sequel-sequel and might become a good game on its own merit. I am no marketing manager, so I may state my own opinion, and I know it is my own opinion and no demographic analysis so I can't generalize any part of my statement. I feel just as sure that there are many people that loved Still Life and have the same strong doubts I have as I am sure that there are many people that will love Still Life 2 for being the game it is (as long as it will turn out alright, you never know) more than the original.
I for myself will say, that this game can't become a true sequel - there is 0 chance of that, because of the reasons I stated. A true sequel would have been what was supposed to have been. A worthy sequel is maybe another matter, and this is where I'm doubtful. Just a sequel it - sadly - undoubtedly is.

(My apologies for the double post, I exceeded the limit of characters.)

Well, now that I have some space left: I did NOT mean to offend you (although I was and am somewhat frustrated that my point doesn't/didn't get across, and I am probably unwilling to continue the debate if I didn't manage to do so, since maybe our mentalities are just too different), and I DO know what your point is, I heavily presume that you are frustrated with my obstinacy concerning this new development and premature harsh judgment, I just hope I was able to give you an insight now why I am treating all those pieces of information this harshly.

[Kate Walker]

I fully agree with Lacrima's remarks.

Just compare Still Life with Syberia and what Benoît Sokal said about Syberia 1 and 2:

Is it true that Syberia & Syberia II were originally developed as one game?
I’ll answer to this by mentioning that overall Syberia is one story. It has been separated in two different chapters. Before being a game, Syberia is primarily a story and I have chosen the video game support to communicate that story.

We briefly considered building only one Syberia game but we quickly had to change our mind, as the challenge was probably too big to overcome. We spent almost two full years on the first Syberia and we will take over one year and a half for the second…Imagine, four years in development!!! That’s too much from an editor standpoint.

This decision also allows us to learn from the mistakes we made with the first “chapter” and to make Syberia II a better game.
http://www.justadventure.com/Interviews/Syberia2/Syberia2BenoitSokal.shtm

The same happend to Still Life. It was too long and was split into 2 games, but in the meantime Microids ran out of money and sold it's development studio in Montreal.

Just imagine, that would have happened after Syberia 1 and now they would publish Syberia 2 with a different story by another writer and a setting years after Syberia 1 with Kate Walker back in the US and not in Romansbourg.

[Trumgottist]

Just imagine, that would have happened after Syberia 1 and now they would publish Syberia 2 with a different story by another writer and a setting years after Syberia 1 with Kate Walker back in the US and not in Romansbourg.

I'm sure there are people who'd be happy with that. ;) I've often heard people say they didn't care as much for Syberia 2 as the first game.

While I can understand that people that liked SL are concerned about the sequel, none of us here know how SL2 will turn out. It may be a great game, or it may be a disappointment. Which it is, we'll just have to wait and see. And like, say, MI3, it's even likely people won't agree about whether it's a good addition to the series or not after its release either, but then we'll at least have something to talk about.

[Terramax]

I felt like quoting much of Lacrima’s comments but I think we’re both looking a little heated, which is not intentional as I find Lacrima’s outlook on the sequel very insightful and interesting, so I’ll just try and get this done a little simpler.

I feel just as sure that there are many people that loved Still Life and have the same strong doubts I have as I am sure that there are many people that will love Still Life 2 for being the game it is more than the original.
I for myself will say, that this game can't become a true sequel - there is 0 chance of that, because of the reasons I stated. A true sequel would have been what was supposed to have been. A worthy sequel is maybe another matter, and this is where I'm doubtful. Just a sequel it - sadly - undoubtedly is.

But you apparently don't see the difference. The original team is gone, and the project wasn't finished. Silent Hill, Broken Sword, what-not; those were games that were done with what they wanted to be done with. Still Life isn't, and now never will be.

I have understood almost all of your previous posts.

But as you have pointed out we both see differently. I don't believe because a different team is behind the franchise that it cannot be true sequel.
I get sequels by the same team that I don't enjoy and hardly consider to be sequels i.e. Broken Sword 3 was a true continuation from the first game and yet, to me, it doesn't 'feel' like a sequel nor did I enjoy it.
On the other side of things, Silent Hill was not concluded at the end of the first game as you say. The questions were only fully answered by the 3rd instalment, which used pretty much a completely different team (the game’s composer was one of the only original staff). And for almost all fans, it worked.

I don’t argue you’re points are wrong. They are no more right or wrong than my own.

My main argument is I felt you were putting your voice and opinion into the mouths of all fans, and I disagreed. This may not have been your intention at any stage, but this is what it often read like. For instance, you mentioned--

I also know that this isn't what Still Life was about…

…AGAIN, I am not saying the vision the new team has is bad, but it just DOES destroy the hopes of what I was just talking about, and that is bad enough for me. I hope you understand my point here.

I think your point is completely understandable and rational. What I'm saying this is not what Still Life was about for you but I don’t think you can say you know what it was about for everyone. Especially not for me!

I argue the 'principles' and the meanings of Still Life are in the eye of the beholder. I understood the relation to art in Still Life, and that’s how the game draws its title, but personally found it as a mere part of Ackerman’s character, and not what the story was about for me. My ideologies of the game’s meaning is obviously vastly different to yours.

We are the ones that read those forums, so we can know how Se7en planned this whole part in L.A., yadda-yadda. Look up Se7en's profile, and then his post history; you'll find a thread where he indicated of how Still Life was supposed to continue. Not with a new killer in Maine, but with a continuation in L.A...

…Still Life "1" requires a sequel, because Larivière always wanted to tell his story completely. I hope you see this major difference.

Well, technically no. The story was trimmed down for financial reasons, but Still Life did tell the complete story. It wasn’t the story Se7en initially wanted, and it is arguable his original vision was a superior one to what we got, but to me the story was told the best way the developers wanted with the restraints they had and, my personal point of view is, Still Life doesn’t require a sequel could easily remain a stand alone product. There certainly could be a sequel to answer unanswered question, but I don’t believe the game ends on a cliff-hanger at all. I argue there is complete closure.

Also, I think, with all due respect to his major contributions to the game, Lariviere’s ideas/ decisions were/ are not the be all and end all. There were other contributors to Still Life, none the least Microids who may I remind are the ones behind Still Life 2. My analogy is, although they may not have created Still Life with their own hands, as I presume they got the team together, funded the project, and possibly even came up with many of the initial ideas, they are at least as much the partial owners and creators of Still Life as the writer and programmers.

I also get the analogy you assume the new programmers haven't given a single thought about the first game. I can understand worries about whether this game will be cannon from the first plot, whether parts of the previous story are explained, but I just don't feel anyone can pass actual judgement as of yet.

Anyways, I think I've taken your thoughts into consideration, and I apologise as it seems to you at times I’ve either ‘not got it’ or ‘ignored’ points, and I do respect your judgement and opinions. I’m just finding it pretty disheartening that with such little information, the game has come under so much scrutiny.

P.S. Regarding Broken Sword; as far as I'm aware Charles Cecil had planned a sequel pretty much from the get go. Essentially, he believed George and Nico's story were not complete, so he continued it with a second instalment hence why the end of Broken Sword informs us there will be a second game.

[Lee in Limbo]

Oh dear, that doesn't seemed to have helped much at all, has it? People were crying out for some sign that SL2 was actually being developed, and when the devs ante up and give us proof, folks get worked up, convinced that what they see is not at all what they thought it would be.

The game isn't done yet. Relax.

As for the mixed gameplay (part action-adventure part survival) approach, well, you can't be too surprised. This is the way the market is going. We keep clambering for more of the same, but are never happy unless a new game is all things to all people. It's a losing proposition. Personally, I'd be too frightened too try and develop a game for some of you folks. Nothing would satisfy.

Maybe that's why I don't talk too often about what I am trying to develop around here. I keep getting the feeling that I'm not really making games for you guys, even if you're the only people I know who play anything other than MMOs. I just feel like my efforts would be wasted on you. You want some non-specific but miraculous thing, and so few of you ever accept anything as being half as good as you thought it would be when you read the initial press release.

Now personally, I'm not really looking forward to playing another action-adventure game, but I might accept it if they really do live up to the brand they're playing with. But I'm going to save my criticism until after they actually put out a game. Anything else is idle speculation anyway. Why get worked up about it?

[Jackal]

Whoa, wait a second. There's been no mention of any mixed gameplay, so let's not jump to conclusions. The reference to "survival" is just the theme of one character's perspective. She's been kidnapped by a serial killer/torturer. Obviously she won't be spending her time interviewing people and dusting for fingerprints. Instead she'll need to try to outsmart her captor and escape her predicament. You know, trying to survive. ;) That in no way means the gameplay is action-based. In fact, it makes more sense for it to be puzzle-based. I mean, how much action could there be when there's only one bad guy?

[Risingson]

I'm sure there are people who'd be happy with that. ;) I've often heard people say they didn't care as much for Syberia 2 as the first game.


People who don't care about good puzzles, good storytelling and good dialogues, something that Syberia 2 had and not its first part, pedantic and... well, I had this conversation too many times.

[MystGirl]

I just happened to finish Still Life this past week. I loved the game. I loved the movie scenes. I thought the killer was quite scary. And the whole underground S&M club element made it very creepy. (mostly because you know that sick stuff actually goes on all over the world with girls and women being kidnapped or sold for torture, etc)

I must be one of the few people who didn't mind the ending of not knowing who the killer was yet. I figured, somehow, we'd find out eventually. And then I heard about the sequel and thought, cool! I'm looking forward to it.

I liked how Still Life went back and forth between two time eras. And that we're not really sure if the killer is a modern copycat, or that the mask gives the original killer(s) some kind of immortality.

I'm actually pretty horrible at the puzzles in adventure games. I have to rely on walkthroughs quite a bit for those parts of the games. I always try them on my own at first, but my brain has never been wired for logic puzzles. But I still love playing them, even with a walkthroughs help. I knew from the very start, that the lock/pick game was going to be hours of frustration for me.


I haven't played Post Mortem yet but after enjoying Still Life so much, I'd like to.

[jcgamer60]

I'm actually pretty horrible at the puzzles in adventure games. I have to rely on walkthroughs quite a bit for those parts of the games. I always try them on my own at first, but my brain has never been wired for logic puzzles. But I still love playing them, even with a walkthroughs help. I knew from the very start, that the lock/pick game was going to be hours of frustration for me.


The puzzles in adventure games are the reason why I can't recommend adventure games to my friends.

[Risingson]

Well, an adventure game without puzzles is like a racing game without racing...

[Jelena]

...or a FPS without a weapon....

[Melanie68]

The puzzles in adventure games are the reason why I can't recommend adventure games to my friends.

Well, an adventure game without puzzles is like a racing game without racing...

I think I see what jcgamer is saying. Not so much that an adventure has puzzles, but often the puzzles used would put off a newbie to adventure gaming. I play games that I really like and think if I were to set a friend or family member in front of the game, would they really know what to do unless I was looking over their shoulder?

Anyway... back on topic. How about Still Life 2? :P (I think it'll be interesting to see what the game will be like).

[Risingson]

Well, if they do know what to do, and enjoy finding out what to do, then they like the genre. We shouldn't be ashamed of not playing everything: I'm terrible at RTS, though I love them as a genre, so I stopped playing them after many - and I mean lots of "many" - examples of these games.

[Terramax]

I think I see what jcgamer is saying. Not so much that an adventure has puzzles, but often the puzzles used would put off a newbie to adventure gaming. I play games that I really like and think if I were to set a friend or family member in front of the game, would they really know what to do unless I was looking over their shoulder?


I think it's also to do with flow. With, say, an FPS or 3rd person action game, because you're not stuck in the same locations for long periods of time, (unless deliberately), programmers have an easier job of making stories go at a reasonable pace.

With adventure games it can be hit and miss depending on the puzzles. If someone who's a genius overcomes the puzzles on an adventure really quickly, they'll probably complain the game is too short. I mean, I've read reviews on Amazon.co.uk about people completing adventures in a single aftertoon!

On the other side of the spectrum, those who're finding the game too challenging are likely to find the game draining, demanding, and if not enough story is developing because of the low progress, it's obviously going to effect one's enjoyment.

It's a hard balance to achieve, and why I'm certain a number of games are now implimenting hint systems to tackle the problem.

EDIT: In fact this is the major problem a lot had with the original Still Life. Not only were the puzzles few and far between, but they thought the best way to balance it out was to add a few unforgiving ones or some irrelavent to the plot.

[Risingson]

But Terramax, modern adventures have been made since, let's say, 1990s, and FPS are quite newer. If people don't know how to design adventures, it is just because of unexperience.

Well, sometimes also incompetence.

[jcgamer60]

I believe most puzzles in adventure games are poorly designed. I believe Chris Kohler of Wired said it best by stating that the puzzles in adventure games seemed more like how the developers "want" you to think. This is mostly due to not providing enough hints etc...

[Se7en]

I believe most puzzles in adventure games are poorly designed. I believe Chris Kohler of Wired said it best by stating that the puzzles in adventure games seemed more like how the developers "want" you to think. This is mostly due to not providing enough hints etc...

In all honesty, puzzles are one of the hardest things to design in a game not to say it's a pain in the ass. There are so many factors that make or break a puzzle. Don't get me started on the cookie puzzle :shifty: :D

[Lee in Limbo]

Puzzle gaming is very subjective. Some folks enjoy the challenge, but others downright demand that you try to stump them, or they feel ripped off. Just about everyone can agree that no one likes puzzles that seemingly make no sense, but even that is subjective, as some people have a better grasp of a specific game's logic, and are able to keep up on the clues better.

Ultimately, the problem is that there is rarely a difficulty setting on puzzle games. The mechanics involved is usually more than any game dev company these days can handle. This is also compounded by the fact that quite a few modern AGs are not expressly puzzle games but story games, with perhaps some moderate puzzle gameplay, more or less because it's expected. Now, not all of them are, as some game dev companies are as focussed on puzzle gameplay as their audience. However, it makes puzzle games a niche within a niche (AGs; within a niche, computer games).

(rant begins)
Now, to hear hardcore puzzle gamers talk, you'd think that's all these games are good for, and that the rest is just window dressing. However, for every puzzle gamer who would like to see every AG focus more on puzzles, there are at least as many AG players who don't care to be beat around the head with how clever the devs think they are. There is also a casual gaming audience that stays away strictly because they know that they don't have the time or perhaps the inclination to play something like Schizm, with puzzles so arcane they would need college degrees in mathematics and linguistics to sort it out without a walkthrough. These people aren't looking for twenty to forty hours of frustration. They just want an adventure. That IS the name of the genre, isn't it? It's not Puzzle Adventure, it's just Adventure Game.(end rant)

It's gotten so that you absolutely need to be net savvy to figure out whether a game is right for you before you dare to pick it up, because you'll have no idea if the game has too many or not enough puzzles (or stealth, combat or acrobatic sequences), let alone if the story is strong enough to compensate. Fortunately, computers and the internet have become more or less ubiquitous these days, but it's still far too easy for folks who don't really know anything about the genre (or computers) to wind up in the wrong place.

Ask yourself this question: What was the first adventure game (be it puzzle- or story-based) that you played... and did you know going in that they were called Adventure Games? See, without that little bit of information, you can't really pick up, say, Evil Under The Sun, and know straight off that it's an adventure game. Now, it's not impossible to Google up Evil Under The Sun and learn that it is in fact a PC game, but the first three hits are Gameboomers, Gamespot and IGN. I haven't read their reviews of the game, but I'm gonna take a wild guess here and say that it might not have faired well in their eyes.

And this brings us all the way back to Still Life 2. Happily, almost the first hit in Google is an Adventure Gamers report, so that's good news. But for anyone not already steeped in this genre, you might not know that Adventure Gamers is one of the best places on the net for English speaking people to read up on adventure games. You don't see it's name in review quotes for games. It's not really known outside of this rarefied circle of people, though thankfully it's not totally obscure or impossible to find, either.

I've been going on for years now that this genre is simply the best genre for people who want to be entertained but don't want to get caught up in button-mashing dexterity challenges like you find in most of the other gaming genres. This is a good genre for exploration, for dialogue, for atmosphere, and yes, even for puzzles. This is the genre most likely to succeed with people whose main source of entertainment is television or the movies (It's also a pretty good place for people who love to read, although they may find their bliss in IF gaming instead). At it's best, this genre can appeal to just about anyone who isn't looking to test their reflexes and pump up their adrenaline.

But the dividing line starts with the puzzle gaming, and how difficult the game devs are going to make it to appease those people who treat these games as primarily a puzzle gaming challenge. And make no mistake, it has sent a lot of people away. A lot of people who might have enjoyed Syberia, The Longest Journey, And Then There Were None, and any number of other stories with puzzle gaming features. Any game that strays too far away from puzzle gaming gets a pretty rough ride around places like this, even though we're not all agreed how difficult the gaming should be in order to remain immersed in the adventure.

I've said it before, and I still believe that this genre could do with a few more games that buck convention and focus on people who want to get immersed in the story and the atmosphere, and want to solve plot dilemmas in a more conventional, less abstract (or downright surreal) fashion. Not all of them. I'm not calling for an end to puzzle gaming. But I do think there is room for other types of gameplay in an adventure game.

I always feel like I'm sticking up for the underdog in these discussions, but I really feel that there are plenty of people out there who would embrace this genre if it weren't so stuck in its ways about the level of difficulty involved in progressing the plot. I used to call puzzles arbitrary, but to be fair to puzzle designers, I don't mean to dismiss them so much as I mean to point out the fact that they are designed (at best) to simulate the difficulty in resolving conflict without resorting to violence.

It may not have been possible to make games twenty years ago that did a convincing job of depicting problem solving in a practical manner, but things have changed. While we're still not living in the holodeck, these games have gotten much more sophisticated, and can deliver a lot more information. Stopping to solve a little minigame to unlock a door is a fun way to define a problem, but it's not very realistic, and it throws off a lot of people who just aren't puzzle people. I believe it's unfair to penalize people who came to play an adventure because they aren't adept at a gameplay device that these games have been associated with for perhaps too long.

Okay, I've gone on too long, so I'll open the floor to those who maintain that these games are dull without puzzles. I will say though that I personally wouldn't mind if Still Life 2 were a little light on the puzzle play, so long as the story and atmosphere live up to its predecessor. Because really, cookie puzzle and keyhole puzzle aside, that's what made me want to finish the original game, and that's what makes me interested in playing the next. A gripping, moody, dramatic adventure. What more can you ask for?

Oh, I forgot... puzzles.

[Squinky]

Fighting the good fight again, I see. :)

This is a good genre for exploration, for dialogue, for atmosphere, and yes, even for puzzles. This is the genre most likely to succeed with people whose main source of entertainment is television or the movies (It's also a pretty good place for people who love to read, although they may find their bliss in IF gaming instead). At it's best, this genre can appeal to just about anyone who isn't looking to test their reflexes and pump up their adrenaline.

Psst... you're forgetting to take into account the fact that a lot of television and movies are heavily adrenaline-based -- and a significant subset of that audience is more than happy to pick up a game of a more twitchy genre. There's also some film and TV that's heavily geeky and "puzzle-like", though that's a little more rare. The line between "passivity" and "activity" isn't as fine as we'd like to assume it is.

[Risingson]

Okay, I've gone on too long, so I'll open the floor to those who maintain that these games are dull without puzzles. I will say though that I personally wouldn't mind if Still Life 2 were a little light on the puzzle play, so long as the story and atmosphere live up to its predecessor. Because really, cookie puzzle and keyhole puzzle aside, that's what made me want to finish the original game, and that's what makes me interested in playing the next. A gripping, moody, dramatic adventure. What more can you ask for?

Oh, I forgot... puzzles.

Well, yes, just to make a difference to a [comic] book...

[Squinky]

Well, yes, just to make a difference to a [comic] book...

*coughWRONGcough* (http://www.deirdrakiai.com/2008/05/10/how-is-a-game-different-from-a-movie/)

[Lucien21]

(rant begins)
Now, to hear hardcore puzzle gamers talk, you'd think that's all these games are good for, and that the rest is just window dressing. However, for every puzzle gamer who would like to see every AG focus more on puzzles, there are at least as many AG players who don't care to be beat around the head with how clever the devs think they are. There is also a casual gaming audience that stays away strictly because they know that they don't have the time or perhaps the inclination to play something like Schizm, with puzzles so arcane they would need college degrees in mathematics and linguistics to sort it out without a walkthrough. These people aren't looking for twenty to forty hours of frustration. They just want an adventure. That IS the name of the genre, isn't it? It's not Puzzle Adventure, it's just Adventure Game.(end rant)

The Genre has nothing to do with the dictionary definition of "Adventure" and is named after the first game in the genre "Adventure" which was basically a text based cave exploration simulation which puzzles were placed in the cave environment to give the explorer to "play" the game.

For me Adventure games have always been about the triangle of plot/puzzles/exploration to quote Marek (http://www.adventuregamers.com/article/id,149) Adventure games focus on puzzle solving within a narrative framework.

Of course games have a differing mix of these elements. Some less story and more puzzles (Myst etc) and some more story less puzzles (syberia etc), bt without anyone of the 3 items it ain't an adventure.

Now, it's not impossible to Google up Evil Under The Sun and learn that it is in fact a PC game, but the first three hits are Gameboomers, Gamespot and IGN. I haven't read their reviews of the game, but I'm gonna take a wild guess here and say that it might not have faired well in their eyes.

Gameboomers is an adventure game site.

[Squinky]

Of course games have a differing mix of these elements. Some less story and more puzzles (Myst etc) and some more story less puzzles (syberia etc), bt without anyone of the 3 items it ain't an adventure.

So, what do you call something that has both a plot and exploration, but no puzzles? It's not quite a movie, because you can explore it, but many would argue that it's not a game, either...

Oh man, I'm posting abnormally much in a thread about the sequel to a game that I haven't played...

[AFGNCAAP]

You know, Lee, marking something as "rant" doesn't give you the right to rely on strawmen and snidish remarks. Also, has it occured to you that you may be always feeling as though defending an underdog because you keep interpreting "puzzles" as an extremely narrow term? What you refer to as "solving plot dilemmas in a more conventional way" would still constitute a puzzle for most AGers.

It's gotten so that you absolutely need to be net savvy to figure out whether a game is right for you before you dare to pick it up, because you'll have no idea if the game has too many or not enough puzzles (or stealth, combat or acrobatic sequences), let alone if the story is strong enough to compensate.Is that a bad thing? What is the alternative? And if there were more variety (in favour of which you argue) wouldn't this "problem" escalate?

Ask yourself this question: What was the first adventure game (be it puzzle- or story-based) that you played... and did you know going in that they were called Adventure Games? See, without that little bit of information, you can't really pick up, say, Evil Under The Sun, and know straight off that it's an adventure game. Now, it's not impossible to Google up Evil Under The Sun and learn that it is in fact a PC game, but the first three hits are Gameboomers, Gamespot and IGN. I haven't read their reviews of the game, but I'm gonna take a wild guess here and say that it might not have faired well in their eyes.I have no idea what's your point here. That knowing that adventure games are called "adventure games" help finding information about them?

*coughWRONGcough* (http://www.deirdrakiai.com/2008/05/10/how-is-a-game-different-from-a-movie/)
I've read it. Interesting piece, but you seem to have undermined your own answer to the question ("How is a game different from a movie?") halfway through:

I’m not quite convinced that games lose their inherent value when stripped of their gameplay. Surely, one can argue that they’re no longer “games”, but I think they’re still very much able to be “played”.

Of course they are no longer games. Freeform exploration of Rubacava may be an enjoyable thing to do, but without rules or goals is as much of a game as wandering through Paris.

[Squinky]

They are, however, still extremely distinguishable from movies and other linear media. So, I reiterate, what are they?

[Lucien21]

A simulation??

[MoonBird]

Well that's a lie and you know it. If you guys had awesome computers, we wouldn't be facing a problem with absolutely ugly graphics. I feel that today's real time 3d graphics look more natural than prerendered environments.

I simply have to disagree with that. 2.5D prerendered graphics with 3D models have been more appealing to me than fulltime 3D ever. Some time ago, I tried to play Sam & Max season 1, but even with the weakest settings, the game was slow (and damn ugly), which was never problem with 2.5D games. If in the future 2.5D games are no longer produced, it's "bye bye adventure games" for me, that's for sure. I Just want to point out with this quote, that no matter what people think, there are those who still love 2.5D graphics. You just cannot deny it.

[Risingson]

Interactive novels or interactive comics.

EDIT: there have been a number of them since the 80s, btw.

[AFGNCAAP]

They are, however, still extremely distinguishable from movies and other linear media. So, I reiterate, what are they?
A simulation??
Interactive novels or interactive comics.

Or interactive movies. Or a sightseeing tour. Or a murder mystery party. I'd say there is no one label which encompasses all posible plot+exploration combos. It depends on more variables. But pointing out that it isn't a game if there is no gameplay seems like a tautology to me.

[AprilLives]

Not sure if I’m completely on track with were this discussion is going. It has me wondering about the puzzles in games and reminds me that I loved Myst and Riven but I couldn’t get through Schizm … even though they are often referred to as being similar.

I think I felt differently about Riven because I got hooked into its story line and the believable actors. Everything I touched felt better than real … it was surreal. That’s why I was willing to struggle through some very difficult puzzles to get to the next stage. I also loved being in each stage I came to … so I didn’t mind not progressing quickly.

At the time, I didn’t realize I’d never quite feel that way again in games, especially where there was no avatar to push around.

I think it’s about seamless integration of the player into an atmosphere that presents a range of difficulties and challenges in its puzzles … the way life does. Except there’s that added feeling of being in a dream state where little miracles can happen and there are mysteries you don’t want to end.

Still Life comes close … despite the gore. The picklock puzzle was a good idea that fit into events but it was designed unfairly … even for mathematical whizzes.

Puzzles are part of life. So in order for an adventure game to feel real, it, too, needs puzzles. But they have to integrate completely, as do all aspects of the game. If one piece of the whole is done poorly, it throws the whole thing off, from tossed in puzzles (Schizm) to poor acting, to shabby art, to amateur animations where avatars (Lost Crown) move their feet but float instead of walk.

In other words, I think we need puzzles in adventures the way we need challenges in life. But we also need the sense (as in life) that we’re going to get somewhere and (as in dreams) that we’re a touch invincible.

[Risingson]

April, in adventure games, when you refer to "puzzles", you include not only those Schizm or Riven mechanical ones, but "give this object to this person", "talk to this person about this thing" and all their variants. Is it difficult to design those things? Yes, it is. But I wonder how you pick a Sierra or Lucas game in, say, 1994 and all of them have, funny, very good puzzle design....

...

... and just when I notice that people in Microids were learning, the company disbands after still life :(

[Terramax]

I have no idea what's your point here. That knowing that adventure games are called "adventure games" help finding information about them?


I think it's the fact many will not buy a product if it's sold as an 'adventure game'. Won't buy if it isn't tooted by the biggest internet sites like IGN or Gamespot. To be blunt; adventure games have a bad name.

Because of the internet, most are less likely to take a risk with a genre they're not accustomed to because we have so much information telling us whether we will like it or not.

I think he referenced Evil Under the Sun as it is clearly for niche Agatha Christie and adventure game fans. If you don't like (or don't think you'd like) either Agatha Christie or adventures, you're not going to buy it, if all the big game site reviews tell you only those two communities will. And if you don't buy it, you won't know if you'd like it, and more sinisterly, won't buy other games of the genre.

However, if you didn't have the internet, or game magazines to inform you of what kind of game it is, and don't have the chance to tell "you won't like this! It's for adventure fans only!", you might possibly take the chance, and end up enjoying it.

Now he asks you if this happened to you personally; with the first adventure you played, would you have taken a chance if you'd been told by IGN and Gamespot that all the game was about was abstract puzzles made up of combining random items and endless dialog?

The next point I think he may be implying is puzzles in adventures have become so formulaic that they're not grabbing fresh blood, neither lending themselves out to anyone other than adventure fans.

Which is why he welcomes a game like Still Life 2 unshameably not trying to sell itself as a puzzle game but more on 3D graphics, plot and *gasp* action elements, something that won't appeal to many in the AG community, but will appeal to just as many, if not more, of those not in it.

I personally believe Dreamfall dropped the puzzles in an attempted to grab a wider market. Unshamably so. I don't know if it exceeded in sales because of it, but it certainly got more coverage and interest from the gaming public than most other traditional adventures. As did Fahrenheit/ Indigo Prophacy.

Basically, sacrefices need to be made to the formula to bring in the fresh blood. Mainly, removing typical, abstract, harsh puzzles. That will mean pushing away the hardcore puzzler freaks, but hell, you gotta break some eggs if you wanna be an omellet.

...... anyway, that's how I see his 'rant'. But chances are I'm wrong and should be told to sit alone in a corner.:crazy:

But Terramax, modern adventures have been made since, let's say, 1990s, and FPS are quite newer.

FPS games have an army to make the games, a budget of a film production, and the biggest publishers.

In comparison, traditionally, adventure games don't have as much of a budget, less resources and the teams are smaller. As stated earlier with regards to the previous Still Life, there was lack of time, workers and budget.

If people don't know how to design adventures, it is just because of unexperience.

Well, sometimes also incompetence.

I don't think that's very fair. It doesn’t matter how much experience you have, if you’ve not physically enough of the factors I stated above available, you can’t realise your full potential even under the highest of experience.

Also, I think the level of experience of an FPS, or just about any genre, compared to a puzzle adventure is far less. You have to put a lot of things into consideration when making a puzzle in a game.
-Is it relevant to the story?
-Is it plausible in the game's world?
-What's the balance between insultingly easy and mercilessly hard?
-What makes a puzzler involving and/or enjoyable?
-Does it use the entire surroundings or is it isolated to a simple key panel?
-How many hints, if any?

In comparison, most FPS games appear to worry about:
-Do the graphics look better than the latest big FPS?
-Do the weapons look cool?
-Are there lots of multiplayer modes?
-Are there lots of vehicles?

No one cares if the shooting in Quake III or Unreal Tournament was cleverly intergrated with the story. The story was just an excuse to blow shit up.

For the balance of hardness:
-Should this creature take 5 or 10 bullets to die?
-how good should the aiming of this baddie be?'
Then there are generally multiple levels of hardness for the casual gamer and the hardcore.

Experience isn’t always a factor. And the time adventure games have had to evolve certainly isn't. Adventure games were in their prime when video games were still only for geeks and... more geeks (as a stereotypist would say).

FPSs have evolved during a time when video games are for a mass audience of all ages and cultures when the medium has finally begun to be accepted by the status quo.

Well, yes, just to make a difference to a [comic] book...

Why do your recent post remind me of Yahtzee's comment "Or maybe all of gaming is pointless, just toying with the gravel on the big road of life."?

But I wonder how you pick a Sierra or Lucas game in, say, 1994 and all of them have, funny, very good puzzle design....

That's a matter of opinion. I personally think the puzzles, and the games in general, that were Sam and Max: Hit The Road and Day of the Tentacle weren't that funny or enjoyable at all.

And bar Gabriel Knight, which was pretty good, but not in my favourite list, I've yet to have enjoyed a game from Sierra, and I've played a few.

Furthermore, just because a game has flaws, and is made by inexperienced people, so you say, doesn't mean they can't be enjoyable.

Or interactive movies.

Or maybe movies are 'uninteractable video games'. After all, technically, aren't video games the evolution/ of superiority of film?

[Risingson]

Well, now into the many-quote response time:

FPS games have an army to make the games, a budget of a film production, and the biggest publishers.

[Right, right] You are [bloody well] right here. You caught me on that one. Seriously.

In comparison, traditionally, adventure games don't have as much of a budget, less resources and the teams are smaller. As stated earlier with regards to the previous Still Life, there was lack of time, workers and budget.

What I admire of Still Life, apart from being very well written and having even better cinematics than Moment of Silence, is how it looks like a game from the people that came from Syberia 2 that tried to "push" things. It's an experimental game, that tries many things and does not feel ashamed of it. Even the (horrible) cookie puzzle can be understood as this. That makes a game that, for mee, feels fascinating. But I don't think that its flaws (just two or three puzzles that are out of context) are related with budget. I mean, use of objects, which is a pain in the ass to design, cost not much more money than a lockpick puzzle.

I don't think that's very fair. It doesn’t matter how much experience you have, if you’ve not physically enough of the factors I stated above available, you can’t realise your full potential even under the highest of experience.

Again, you are right. Money has a lot to do here, and time too.

Also, I think the level of experience of an FPS, or just about any genre, compared to a puzzle adventure is far less. You have to put a lot of things into consideration when making a puzzle in a game.
-Is it relevant to the story?
-Is it plausible in the game's world?
-What's the balance between insultingly easy and mercilessly hard?
-What makes a puzzler involving and/or enjoyable?
-Does it use the entire surroundings or is it isolated to a simple key panel?
-How many hints, if any?

Sure. But then again there is that other question which bothers me everytime that we talk about adventures: if the classic adventure genre found it that hard to adapt to the new era of 3D and big teams, why classic RPGs like the ones from Bioware (which are very close to the classic ones by Westwood and Origin) adapted so well into this format? I'm not talking about KOTOR or Jade Empire here, I don't know i am clear...


In comparison, most FPS games appear to worry about:
-Do the graphics look better than the latest big FPS?
-Do the weapons look cool?
-Are there lots of multiplayer modes?
-Are there lots of vehicles?

Heh. Lately I discovered that the question I make about a FPS is:
- Are there zombies and are there grindhouse moments?

so since Half Life 2 I haven't enjoyed any of them. Anyway, FPS, seeing the last examples of hypes of the genre (Bioshock, Crysis) depend more on the hype and expectation than in any other thing apart from graphics and multiplayer. I mean, graphics + multiplayer+hype= 90/100 in most review sites. You put effort in design just in the first 5 levels, you promise 30 of them, and then you have it: a success during a year. Six months after the release date you sell it cheap, and after two years, you put it on sales. There's no business like game business.


For the balance of hardness:
-Should this creature take 5 or 10 bullets to die?
-how good should the aiming of this baddie be?'
Then there are generally multiple levels of hardness for the casual gamer and the hardcore.

What about the seesaw puzzles in Half Life 2, then? That game, like Tron 2.0, No One Lives Forever and other FPS that trascended their time of release, has its virtues in a world design that gives rewards not only in "hard to kill"... hey, I'm loosing myself in off-topic, sorry. But, to make it short, I think you are simplistic here.


Experience isn’t always a factor. And the time adventure games have had to evolve certainly isn't. Adventure games were in their prime when video games were still only for geeks and... more geeks (as a stereotypist would say).

Snif. My sisters will never forgive you that.

Why do your recent post remind me of Yahtzee's comment "Or maybe all of gaming is pointless, just toying with the gravel on the big road of life."?

Don't make that comparison, I'm blushing! :)

(maybe because I also began in the Home of the Underdogs forum)


That's a matter of opinion. I personally think the puzzles, and the games in general, that were Sam and Max: Hit The Road and Day of the Tentacle weren't that funny or enjoyable at all.

And bar Gabriel Knight, which was pretty good, but not in my favourite list, I've yet to have enjoyed a game from Sierra, and I've played a few.


Sam & Max actually has problems with puzzle design, but I don't think the same with DOTT, which I replayed one week ago, and I found that MANY clues are given to you for each type of action. There are some puzzles that defy logic (washing a car to make it rain??!!) but the game is rewarding. Every puzzle triggers an action, and many times, a funny one (when Bernard rescues Dr Fred, the beauty contest...). That sense of

[interruption: GOOOOOAL!]

That sense of difficulty-reward is the basis of all games.

Furthermore, just because a game has flaws, and is made by inexperienced people, so you say, doesn't mean they can't be enjoyable.

Hey, I didn't say that.

[stepurhan]

There are some puzzles that defy logic (washing a car to make it rain??!!) but the game is rewarding.
This might be a cultural thing. In the UK (and presumably the US) it is common to say that it will rain right after you've washed your car (so you could have waited and saved yourself the trouble). There is, of course, no logical reason for that to happen but it is presumed to be well-known, hence inclusion in the game without any other direct clues.

[Risingson]

Well, then it's like the "monkey-wrench" in Monkey Island 2...

[Gazzoid]

Well, then it's like the "monkey-wrench" in Monkey Island 2...

What exactly is the 'monkey-wrench' puzzle in Monkey Island 2? I don't remember it, but then it has been a little while since i played it. :crazy:

[Dale Baldwin]

You have to use a hypnotised monkey as a wrench.

[KasiaD]

The next point I think he may be implying is puzzles in adventures have become so formulaic that they're not grabbing fresh blood, neither lending themselves out to anyone other than adventure fans.


Is it really such a bad thing? In pursuit of making adventure games more popular the designers spoil them. From my selfish perspective Dreamfall for example would be a game of the decade if it was point and click. And my friends who dislike adventure games but like action games did not want to play it anyway - too much talking.

There is no possibility for adventure in my opinion to match the popularity of shooters, sim, sport games etc. And there should be no pointless attempts.
Such are maybe the tastes of public, that majority likes Bollywood and minority Ingmar Bergman. I know it is a terrible stereotype I am using now and it is not my goal to offend anyone, but I consider advenures to be not "commercial" pulp and easy low-end entertainment therefore they are hardly bestselling.

[Gazzoid]

You have to use a hypnotised monkey as a wrench.

Hmmm, sounds vaguely familiar. What part's that in the game and why do you have to use it?

[Risingson]

Maybe it's because you played it in the "easy" setting. It was just before the house of the man that defies you to drink more than him.

[Gazzoid]

No, i have played it on 'normal' mode and i remember the pirate who challenges you to that drinking game. But i still can't remember the 'monkey-wrench'.

EDIT: Ahhhhh, I remember now! I just checked a walkthrough and found out. Guess i should've done that anyway. :P You should've said it was the monkey playing the piano at the Bloody Lip. I'd probably have guessed it.

[AprilLives]

April, in adventure games, when you refer to "puzzles", you include not only those Schizm or Riven mechanical ones, but "give this object to this person", "talk to this person about this thing" and all their variants.(
Absolutely, if I understand you correctly … those inbetween conversations and tasks you’re given matter. Maybe that’s why Riven seems like so much more than a bunch of mechanical puzzles (although it has lots) yet Schizm and some of its “clones” don’t. The mechanical puzzles suited Riven because they replicated the crazy mind of Ghen and for some strange reason I saw them, not as mechanical, but as an extension of a race of people.

In Schizm (although beautiful in many ways and challenging) one simply moves from mechanical puzzle to mechanical puzzle with very little in the middle. Some are happy with that … an animated, colorful book of puzzles. But I play a game because I want adventure in those inbetween times.

Still Life, although so different from Riven, shares some of that adventure factor. So I am really looking forward to the second one which could be better than the first.

[Terramax]

if the classic adventure genre found it that hard to adapt to the new era of 3D and big teams, why classic RPGs like the ones from Bioware (which are very close to the classic ones by Westwood and Origin) adapted so well into this format? I'm not talking about KOTOR or Jade Empire here, I don't know i am clear...

Good question and a valid one. I think I know what you mean. Why is it RPGs have made a perfect transition to 3D when adventures haven't(?)

My personal opinion is because of the action elements make these more appealing to the mass market. Also, the boom in Japanese RPGs in the late 90's prompted Western developers to take the risk as to compete.

I don't know specifically when it was that RPGs made the big transition from 2D to 3D. Deus Ex and Morrowind? Early 2000's possibly?

Maybe it was the fact that with more powerful games consoles like the PS2 and Dreamcast, and PCs, it was expected developers show off what these consoles are capable of by making them 3D. In fact it even happens now. Everyone expects every PS3 game to look like a billion dollars or it's crap regardless if it's well written or highly playable.

The continuous success of RPGs is possibly contributed by the stories themselves being more violent and action packed. You know, as in epic wars mixed with complicated love triangles, etc. I'm guessing for many, the stories to Final Fantasy or KOTOR are more interesting than a LucasArts adventure.

Also, bare in mind, it isn't that adventure games didn't try. LucasArts took an all or nothing risk with Grim Fandango. So did Sierra with Gabriel Knight 3. 2 Amazing games from the biggest, most experienced adventure developers. Both flopped.

What about the seesaw puzzles in Half Life 2, then? That game, like Tron 2.0, No One Lives Forever and other FPS that trascended their time of release, has its virtues in a world design that gives rewards not only in "hard to kill"... hey, I'm loosing myself in off-topic, sorry. But, to make it short, I think you are simplistic here.

I get your point completely. Admittedly I've not played the FPS games you mentioned above. I refuse to buy Half Life 2 because of Steam. I shouldn't have to log my details every time I want to play one of their games. If they don't trust me, I don't trust them.

Back to the main point, FPS games do put more things into consideration to make them unique and innovative than I made out before. Prey for example with the gravity thing. But from what I've read of the seesaw puzzle in Half Life 2 and Prey's ideas, most FPS games work on gimmicks rather than adventures that have to consistantly strive for puzzles that are fun and relevant. I even recall Yahtzee criticising HL Episodes for how the seesaw puzzle was getting old.

Whilst FPSs can get away with making a game with one good idea, and everything at least adequete; adventure games need every aspect of the design, story, puzzles, interface to work correctly or the game falls down hard. Take Still Life. We're all calling it a classic, top adventure now, but when it was first released, you'd be hard pushed to see anyone call it that. Everyone was downrating the game for the inconsistant puzzles and abrupt ending. Look at the reviews on Amazon.co.uk. Hell, even my review of Still Life was 3/5 (I'm in the process of rewritting it, before anyone says anything).

The other problem that I've created for myself when comparing adventures to shooters are one is based around logic and intelligence, the other being reflexes. Most people do buy games these days to blow shit up and do it better than anyone else online. Adventures just don't fill that void.

Overally, what I'm getting at is, adventures are harder to write, design, get produced with a right budget and timeline, have less of an audience, the target audience appear more elitist, snobbish and stingy, and they barely get any coverage or good scores from the game press even if they are good or even a classic.

I don't always agree with adventures being 3D or more action oriented, but I don't blame developers for their reasons behind why. Most adventure programmers only make adventures because they really like the genre (Telltale, White Bird). But they need to be funded by financers that don't neccessarily enjoy the genre, but are in the business of making as much money. The developers need these financer's money. But why should they fund an adventure when they could easily likely make more money investing in a high range RPG, RTS or FPS?

The only logical step would be to impliment ideas that will catch the attention of fans of these other genres.

It's an experimental game, that tries many things and does not feel ashamed of it. Even the (horrible) cookie puzzle can be understood as this. That makes a game that, for mee, feels fascinating. But I don't think that its flaws (just two or three puzzles that are out of context) are related with budget. I mean, use of objects, which is a pain in the ass to design, cost not much more money than a lockpick puzzle.

I think they are to do with budget and time constraints. Had they the time, they could have thought up and implimented more puzzles that were more relevant to the plot, easier to solve and would have added to the fluidity of the piece.

As it stands, the game is one that is almost like a game that plays out itself without much effort of the player with just a few ultra hard puzzles thrown in to remind the player everyone once in a while they do have to make some efforts at some point in the game, and the hardness of the puzzles prevents the game from being finished too quickly. They still feel more filler.

Although, perhaps if you explain in more detail by what you mean by them being experiemental?

Is it really such a bad thing? In pursuit of making adventure games more popular the designers spoil them. Well, this is the catch 22 situation. If the puzzles/ games are formulaic, they get damned by non-adventure fans for being snobbishly niche, and to a certain extent damned by some adventure gamers for not trying to be more original.

However, if the programmers do decide to add some originality to the mix, which in turn spits out a few flaws here and there, or lack of polish, hardcore adventure fans damn them for not being true adventures, and having action elements that they can't handle.

As RisingSon was possibly getting at, an experienced developer will be able to figure out the balance to satisfy all parties. But remember, these people are running a business, and are probably being told by investors and publishers "we want you to make this more action orientated, because we think this will make it sell better. And to hell with what experience you have, we have the money, we call the shots."

EDIT:

There is no possibility for adventure in my opinion to match the popularity of shooters, sim, sport games etc. And there should be no pointless attempts.
Such are maybe the tastes of public, that majority likes Bollywood and minority Ingmar Bergman. I know it is a terrible stereotype I am using now and it is not my goal to offend anyone, but I consider advenures to be not "commercial" pulp and easy low-end entertainment therefore they are hardly bestselling.

Well, this is where others on these forums disagree with you. Not me personally. I agree with you. I don't mind some adventures (like Still Life 2), being 3D so long as they look good, but I do prefer pre-rendered/ hand drawn, and I don't mind puzzles being traditional, or even arbitrary and abstract so long as the story is good enough that I can wave these facts away (ie the original Still Life).

But some out there clearly believe adventures are capable of achieving much more if they do attempt to go more commercial. But I'll leave those guys to argue for themselves :D

[kadji-kun]

Okay these posts are too long. We are going to have to novelize this thread. haha

[Lucien21]

I get your point completely. Admittedly I've not played the FPS games you mentioned above. I refuse to buy Half Life 2 because of Steam. I shouldn't have to log my details every time I want to play one of their games. If they don't trust me, I don't trust them.

You don't.

You can play the games in Offline mode.

[kadji-kun]

I get your point completely. Admittedly I've not played the FPS games you mentioned above. I refuse to buy Half Life 2 because of Steam. I shouldn't have to log my details every time I want to play one of their games. If they don't trust me, I don't trust them.

You know what, I'm going to complain about having to press the button on my TV remote to turn on the TV. Its just too much.

If you find that disturbing, then please, stop using computers and stop living. Things change, technology moves forward. If you find that using Steam ( a program that seeks to distribute games without publishing costs and will stay with you throughout the duration of your account (forever)) then by all means, complain. Today, the only way to get certain games is to pirate them, or torrent them. Some games are so rare, that you will not be able to find a copy without paying more than you need to.

Steam should be an adventure gamers friend. It keeps products alive. The economy of the system is great too. As games live there life, they receive discounts. Not only that, but the product will always become available to whomever wants to play them.

Your complain is flawed. I see you as a stubborn old fart who can't accept change.

[QDream]

wow Terramax do you write for a daily newspaper or something? :D

[Terramax]

You can play the games in Offline mode.

I wasn't referring to Steam when I said 'I get your point'.

Your complain is flawed. I see you as a stubborn old fart who can't accept change.

Yes, I can't accept change. That's why in my previous post I made a special point I understood why programmers were trying to move forward. :frusty:

Tell me Kadji-Kun, what's it like being a rocket scientist? :shifty:

And for the record, just because I don't like Steam, it doesn't mean I'm stuck in the past. If the two above need an explanation, I don't believe I should have to sign up to any program, handing over personal details either about myself or my computer, to play a game. Or buy new in order to play it. To me, that's not progression.

wow Terramax do you write for a daily newspaper or something?

Well, I'm a very fast touch typist. Also, when I've made comments in the past, people have convicted me of not backing up my points, so these days I prefer to nip them in the bud :D

[stepurhan]

Your complain is flawed. I see you as a stubborn old fart who can't accept change.Disagree by all means but do it without the abuse please.

[kadji-kun]

Disagree by all means but do it without the abuse please.

He agreed that he was stubborn, so....lol

[stepurhan]

He agreed that he was stubborn, so....lol
Someone accepting they have a particular trait doesn't make the original use of abusive language OK. The general tone of the rest of the post I quoted wasn't much better. May I remind you that "Respect each other (http://www.adventuregamers.com/forums/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item3#loop)" is one of the rules of the forums.

[kadji-kun]

Someone accepting they have a particular trait doesn't make the original use of abusive language OK. The general tone of the rest of the post I quoted wasn't much better. May I remind you that "Respect each other (http://www.adventuregamers.com/forums/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item3#loop)" is one of the rules of the forums.

Sir yes sir. I'll discontinue my offensive blabber.

Lets get back on topic again. Lets talk about the facts of Still Life 2. :D

[AprilLives]

I assumed the making of Still Life was somewhat inspired by the real life horror of Jack the Ripper. Now I’m wondering if the equally horrible so-called Zodiac killer of long ago had some sway in the story line. Has anyone already mentioned this?

Anyway, sadly, recent news articles speak of two murdered women in different parts of the US found dead in bathtubs. Apparently, the police got a note from the supposed killer who drew a symbol and referenced the word “masterpiece”.

The bathtub and “art” theme in Still Life has me wondering what real (if any) events inspired the game.

[Terramax]

He agreed that he was stubborn, so....lol

I think my sarcasm was somewhat lost in translation on its trip from the UK to Tokyo.

I assumed the making of Still Life was somewhat inspired by the real life horror of Jack the Ripper. Now I’m wondering if the equally horrible so-called Zodiac killer of long ago had some sway in the story line. Has anyone already mentioned this?

Anyway, sadly, recent news articles speak of two murdered women in different parts of the US found dead in bathtubs. Apparently, the police got a note from the supposed killer who drew a symbol and referenced the word “masterpiece”.

The bathtub and “art” theme in Still Life has me wondering what real (if any) events inspired the game.

There's certainly a good case for debate there (not from me, so don't worry).

Having seen a few training courses on it, I understand a lot of professional and wannabe murder mystery writers do analyse real solved and unsolved murder cases for inspiration.

[Risingson]

The bathtub and “art” theme in Still Life has me wondering what real (if any) events inspired the game.

When it came out, I thought of Still Life story as a very intelligent blend of giallo (Darío Argento), 80's explotation movies (which, now that I think, are not very far from giallo) and 90's explotation thrillers (Seven, Silence of the lambs...). It's just a very balanced combination of clichés.

[AprilLives]

Having seen a few training courses on it, I understand a lot of professional and wannabe murder mystery writers do analyse real solved and unsolved murder cases for inspiration.
It's just a very balanced combination of clichés.
I guess good fiction (no matter how fantastical) is believable and in some way mirrors real life. Real life, on the other hand, is stranger than fiction … to use another cliché.

[QDream]

NEW SCREENSHOTS:

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/14338/328120_full.jpg

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/14338/328118_full.jpg

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/14338/328116_full.jpg

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/14338/328114_full.jpg

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/14338/328112_full.jpg

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/14338/328110_full.jpg

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/14338/328108_full.jpg <-- awesome

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/14338/328106_full.jpg

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/14338/328104_full.jpg

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/14338/328102_full.jpg

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/14338/328100_full.jpg

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/14338/328098_full.jpg <-- hot :P

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/14338/328096_full.jpg

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/14338/321112_full.jpg

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/14338/321110_full.jpg

[QDream]

Looks like cutscenes will be as amazing as they were in the first part.. not too sure about actual gfx though

[nomadsoul]

same here, gameplay gfx looking outdated and not atmospheric as first one, should have gone for prerendered since atmosphere is most important for this series.

[kadji-kun]

Again, it doesn't mater if it is prerendered or not. Its the laziness of the devs that make it look empty. Never make that assumption.

Anyways, I have o say, the graphics are okay, but the environments look SO empty!

[Terramax]

Again, it doesn't mater if it is prerendered or not. Its the laziness of the devs that make it look empty. Never make that assumption.

Anyways, I have o say, the graphics are okay, but the environments look SO empty!

Agreed on both points. Play the Silent Hills or Max Payne and you'll understand 3D graphics can make as good a job of a dark atmosphere as pre-rendered.

Locations indeed don't look as 'full' as they perhaps should do. But then again, it depends on the situation. If that house has been deserted for years, you wouldn't expect much in it anyway. So far it's the only location we've received gameplay screens to. I think I'll enjoy exploring that house.

[nomadsoul]

Past havent made you people realize one basic thing.

That devleopers specially of pc adventure gaming fall flat on face when they turn in 3d form 2d, history shows game gone bad like brokensword, overclocked, that werent as atmospheric detailed or captivating like their past efforts like BS1,2 or moment of silence.

I agree developers are lazy but thing is they should learn it and not try to do what they can't in fixed budget/resources, specially not at the price of feeling/originality and atmosphere of franchise.

Agreed on both points. Play the Silent Hills or Max Payne and you'll understand 3D graphics can make as good a job of a dark atmosphere as pre-rendered.

Don't compare microids to remedy and konami, thats just really funny, they are pioneers in gaming tech.

Creating good 3d environments with proper atmosphere is way more challenging, specially if you lack workforce.

[kadji-kun]

THere is no problem with compaing Microids with Konami. Both companies produce great assets. Microids though seem to fail at understanding that they need to pick a better engine. Both companies have employees that are capable of produce polished quality 3d models. This is all that is need to produce something awesome.

The engine that powers my project doesn't set BSP rendering (the same used for Quake). The cool think about our engine is the fact that the whole game world is based on a bunch of split models. In short, the whole world is a giant model, without the need to lose too much detail.

The thing about what your saying is the fact that Microids shouldn't be developing a 3d Game until they know what they are doing, which is absolutely true.

I've seen lots of detail put into games that use BSP rendering. So, in short, there is no reason why there shouldn't be lots of detail in the game.

[Sik]

Mmm, it doesn't look bad. If it was a standalone game I'd say it was promising, but the first Still Life looked amazing in my opinion. Judging by the screenshots, this sequel looks worse than the original, and that's never a good thing. Then again, it's harder to judge full 3d graphics by screenshots than prerendered ones. It might have fluid animations and great use of camera angles that will make it work. I'll cling to that until I get to play it. :)

Don't compare microids to remedy and konami, thats just really funny, they are pioneers in gaming tech.

Creating good 3d environments with proper atmosphere is way more challenging, specially if you lack workforce.

Well, that's true, but Dreamfall was an amazing looking game, and without having the numbers, I don't think it would be unreasonable to compare Microids to FunCom? Granted, I think Dreamfall had a very high budget for an adventure game, and it was probably more anticipated as a sequel than Still Life 2 after the success of TLJ. It was also much longer in development, but as an example, Dreamfall shows that it's possible for a small company to make an adventure game with full 3D graphics on par with what players are used to from other genres.

[nomadsoul]

Funcom isn't that small, they are leading heads in norway, check the sales of recent conan MMO[shich is made by differnt team in funcom], its doing pretty good job. And still who knows when dreamfall chapters will come, Dreamfall itself took years.

[kadji-kun]

It doesn't matter how big or successful the company is. They both can equally compare each other. Its the people in the company which define the products. Look at Far Cry. A ground breaking game made by a small company. There are plenty of games, especially mods that show amazing quality that break new grounds and are made by a small group.

[Terramax]

Don't compare microids to remedy and konami, thats just really funny, they are pioneers in gaming tech.

Your statement slides away from my original point, which was proving wrong the insinuation that pre-rendered is 'better' at making atmospheric games than 3D. There was no comparison involved.

Not that I'd consider Remedy 'Pioneers', as much as I enjoyed Max Payne.

[Sik]

Your statement slides away from my original point, which was proving wrong the insinuation that pre-rendered is 'better' at making atmospheric games than 3D. There was no comparison involved.

Not that I'd consider Remedy 'Pioneers', as much as I enjoyed Max Payne.

They are pioneers when it comes to technology. They developed the 3D benchmarking software that later turned into 3Dmark. They're certainly not up there with Konami when it comes to budgets and manpower, though. Or well, not manpower at least. I guess they can afford to take their time with new projects after the success with the Max Payne games.

Anyway, what you can't compare is a high tech shooter game with an adventure game. A traditional adventure game could be considered a success with sales that would have made it a flop if it was a cutting edge shooter.

[nomadsoul]

Remedy track record is awesome, all titles were heavy on budget and quality, quality is what matters both in gameplay and tech.

Now they are making alanwake, taking time probably because of quality.

back to topic

look at this
http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/14338/328112_full.jpg

walls, curtains and wood textures lack depth

here
http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/14338/328110_full.jpg

the tone of textures is too light, to the extent of total flat

against this atmospheric concept art of different location if you wil notice
http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/14338/321112_full.jpg

it can be really easily translated into 2.5d prerenderd background, with atmosphere of conceptart intact.

Thats what i meant , and advocated for prerendered settings.

[kadji-kun]

A big problem with what I see in those shots are the fact that teh sahdows and lighting is absolutely old technology. I see low quality shadow maps (128-256 pixels in size) and everything looks flat and dull. There's no gloss, no glow, no warmth, no cold. It just feels flat and boring.

If they can produce something lively. I say stick with 2.5d.

[Terramax]

Indeed the kitchen in those shots echoes Nico's dull apartment in BS3.

[Lunatik]

Thanks QDream for posting the new screenshots! (They're on the previous page actually.) ;)

Hmmm... I'm not sure about this "full 3D" presentation. It sure feels different than the first game. But perhaps those images are only work-in-progress and not from completed environments. Anyhow, I still think it looks good.

[Buko]

Anyone up for a little french translation? :-) Still life 2 preview can be found here plus new screens!
http://www.jeuxvideo.com/articles/0000/00009394-still-life-2-preview.htm