Is Will of the Wisps better than Blind Forest in every way?

[Outplayedx]

Hey guys, I only have time to play one of the games and was wondering whether WotW is a mechanically/systems-wise superior game to the original.

I don't really care about story in games at all, just the mechanical challenge (difficulty) and graphical fidelity. I think WotW looks downright gorgeous, but I wasn't sure whether they changed or added anything in the game to make it easier for newcomers to the genre (like how much easier it is for a Souls-like newcomer to jump into Dark Souls 3 vs. the janky and more cryptic DS1).

Would appreciate any insight, thanks!

tldr: which is the harder game?

[skydiamand]

I would say yes. Exept story.
And map desing aswell. It still is a bit linear like bf

[Nicholas Steel]

They're both about on par in terms of difficulty... at least once you assume a popular build to use against Kwolok.

Blind Forest is I think marginally the easier game but the floaty jumping and worse mid-air control of your character brings it on par with Will of Wisps.

[Stretchyf]

It is hard to tell. About question that you placed in the header I'm agree with skydiamand - story feels as a weak point in WotW (but not in BF) and level design in BF is more clean, especially if to speak about original 2015 version (not DE). But it looks it is not what you are asking actually.

Difficulty is a relative thing. I'll try to elaborate about difficulty and mechanics.
1. BF has a lot of insta-death hazards and generally kills Ori faster while WotW has more casual feel in platforming part - Ori is kinda "thick skinned" in WotW on Normal and can take quite a beating. But BF felt more like "you either good or dead".
2. In WotW you have melee combat and not have it in BF. And depending on how you excel in it it can be an added difficulty or just be fun.
3. You have Bosses in WotW and not BF. Bosses are not really hard in WotW. All the WotW makes an impression to be made more cinematic and dramatic at visuals but not really challenging, at least for me.
4. Escape sequences in BF felt as more of a challenge you have in both games. Combined with more challenging platforming I would say that BF is harder in my opinion.

WotW has gorgeous graphics, BF also pretty good in that regard but graphics in WotW feels even richer. Wotw can be marginally longer than BF or 2x times longer depending on your playing style. BF is really cheap on a sale.

[Nibbie]

Originally posted by skydiamand:

I would say yes. Exept story.

This is pretty much my take. Story is weak, but otherwise better to me.

[Scott]

Will of the Wisps is better in Combat, Music and overall gameplay... but worse in Exploration and Story. Escape sequences are better in the original.

You should play both

[Stormspark]

Will of the Wisps is bigger, with more stuff to find and unlock, and a LOT more complex in both abilities and combat. I don't think it necessarily makes it "better" though. I think the combat is a bit overcomplicated, while Blind Forest had combat that was a bit too simple (and no boss fights). Blind Forest also had a lot more cheap instant deaths. So the pros and cons balance each other out really. Both deserve GOTY of the year they came out.

[BuzzingBee]

For which game is harder, it all depends on player whether they're more skilled in platforming or combat. As others said, Blind Forest = platforming and Will of the Wisps = combating. Rechecking my death counts I die a lot on Blind Forest compared to Will of the Wisps.

Visually both are excellent. Although Will of the Wisps is 'better', Blind Forest still looks timeless.

If you don't care about story at all, try to resist both game's excellent storytelling. I mean... look at Ori it's so cute =)

[Iraneth The Goat]

Same as nearly all other posts, The blind forest has a better story but Will of the Wips has better game play.

[mvon007]

Really? BF has better gameplay in terms of tighter controls. Skills like grapple and burrow are quite inconsistent, which is what leads to the main issues with things like worm chase. Also various areas where you all but need to hit spikes. Well I guess there is the thing of insta-death spikes vs non, but it is like they used it as an excuse for less precise platforming puzzles.

Story, yeah no comparison BF takes it.

[BuzzingBee]

Originally posted by mvon007:

Really? BF has better gameplay in terms of tighter controls. Skills like grapple and burrow are quite inconsistent, which is what leads to the main issues with things like worm chase. Also various areas where you all but need to hit spikes. Well I guess there is the thing of insta-death spikes vs non, but it is like they used it as an excuse for less precise platforming puzzles.

Story, yeah no comparison BF takes it.

My only issue with grapple is it's the same button as bashing, so I get mixed up what I can or can't reach for grapple and bashing.
And for burrow I agree it felt clunky controlling Ori, it should've remained stationary when not moving on controller.

[Xayah for Dinner]

Originally posted by Stormspark:

Will of the Wisps is bigger, with more stuff to find and unlock, and a LOT more complex in both abilities and combat. I don't think it necessarily makes it "better" though. I think the combat is a bit overcomplicated, while Blind Forest had combat that was a bit too simple (and no boss fights). Blind Forest also had a lot more cheap instant deaths. So the pros and cons balance each other out really. Both deserve GOTY of the year they came out.

I think if silksong was coming out in 2020, it'd take the crown. but it looks like it'll be coming 2021 idk

[dimi]

As the others said, WotW has less exploration compared to the previous game and the straightforward way you earned your abilities in BF was sacrificed because of the more open nature of WotW. Since I loved this in BF, the complexity in WotW was frustrating and felt like a mess. There are too many abilities and the fact that you can freely assign abilities now just overcomplicates things. It's not like there's several ways to navigate an area, they are pretty much designed with one or two abilities in mind. And if you enter an area when you don't have the specific ability the area requires, then it just confuses you, or at least it did confuse me, since I wasn't sure if it was me just not seeing a solution for how to navigate an area or if I'm not even suppose to try, since I don't have the necessary skill unlocked yet. I appreciate that they tried something new, but for me it hurt the game more than it helped.
In terms of combat tho, WotW is far better an diverse, but I don't think combat fits these games very well in the first place.

[pl.dev]

Wotw adds a huge variety of movements and forces the player to create builds to face different challenges. (not too deeply) But the implementation is not as organic as BF. This disturbs the flow of the experience which hurts in the narration of the story.
The melee combat gameplay changes the experience a lot from the first game. Because of that, the obstacles designed for these mechanics require a lot of skill from the players but never becomes frustrating.
The skill selection system corrects the spam of abilities from the last game (stomp) but this also forces the player to stop the game to change the desired skill into a slot, which also breaks the immersion.

Blind Forest is a superior game as a whole. The flow of the game helps the player enjoy his skills without losing the focus on the story. Also, the excessive amount of text in the new game used in the quest system contradicts its narrative, which focuses on short phrases and emotions. But it's a little more rewarding thanks to the village progression system and feels much faster and precise, which is a great design for the demanding Metroidvania lovers.
If you don't want to focus on the experience and just enjoy smart gameplay and challenges, wotw will be a better choice.

[Corrupted Slime]

Quite the opposite, The only thing WoTW does better is combat. They've added a lot of unnecessary RPG elements. Music is worse, the same goes for story. Graphic is comparable, both games have some nice places.

[Lyra]

Those questions are always hard to answer since both are very good games as a whole. So since I'm bored right now, let me break some of the aspects down to decide if one of them is better in all or almost every part (take note: obviously, all just based on my personal opinion. You might think differently than me and that's okay).

Art - both equally great. WotW has more diverse areas (partially possible due to map size), thus shows more of what these artists can accomplish - which is awesome.

Music - Right after playing WotW, I would've said both are equal. But as a cinephile and soundtrack lover, I have the routine of listening entire soundtrack and score albums in the weeks after having watched a movie or having finished a video game. And sadly, after revisiting the BF album and listening to WotW in comparison, I found BF to be notably superior as a whole. More variety, more memorable tracks, more in accordance to the areas/'boss fights'. Don't get me wrong, WotW is still good in terms music, I just didn't find it to be AS good as BF.

Abilities - Goes hand in hand with combat but gonna mention it seperately anyway. WotW definitely improves on the system. BF lacked certain abilities and made parts seem wooden. BF, sometimes, made you more stumble through a section than actually maneuver through it.

Combat - has already been said many times: WotW wins that one. It feels more fluid and you have more choice in how to fight and what abilities to use. You could find this too complex, unnessecary or too RPG-like. I can see that, but it didn't bother me, simply added to the overall more open playstyle of WotW. BF didn't offer that much, enemies had less variety. Not to forget all those frustrating insta deaths in BF that didn't feel like you had any say in the matter. Sure, it made the game more difficult at times, but it mostly felt like many deaths did not depend your abilities but pure luck. And they could seriously ruin combat. I died more from random spikes than ememies.

Boss Fights - I'm probably gonna get backlash for this, but BF. You might wonder what boss fights in BF I'm talking about but hear me out. Many people don't consider BF having boss fights, but it sort of did - the escape sequences. They felt organic and I loved them. WotW had them, too, but they were too easy and overshadowed by good-looking but a little generic boss fights. I generally liked them but to me, they felt a little forced. As in "every game has boss fights, so we need to include them as well". What I liked about BF is that it didn't do it like every other game. BF's escape scenes were more challenging and fun, they fit in the game and the story.

Platforming - Both amazing. Wouldn't put one above the other. Might want to mention BF's unnessecary insta deaths again, though. They killed the fluidity at times, something that didn't happen in WotW at all imo.

Exploration - Both fantastic but I'm going with WotW (only by a small mark). Thanks to the map size it offers more space and areas to explore. You can find shards, can build houses for Moki, and so on. It just adds to what has already been there in BF. Not sure what to think about the fast-travel option, though. It made things too simple and unorganic at times, at least when it comes to exploration. This is something I liked better about BF (also, BF didn't auto save which made it more interesting).

Characters - WotW. Don't think I need to explain that one. Most of the ones from BF are still there plus interesting new character were added. Also, the Moki! Who could ever get past them? They're adorable.

Story - BF. Period. WotW was messy, not as coherent and made me believe the developers had a completely different idea at first and dumbed it midway through the process. The lost wisps thing came out of nowhere and didn't really have anything to do with Ku - who initially got the story going (and was advertised as part of the game), just to never really be seen again. I would've been okay with the ending if it didn't feel so cheaply and messily put together.

Gameplay - Hard one for me. Really liked it in both. WotW flows better but overcomplicated things at times. All the shards, the quests,... They were great but too much at times. BF was easier to overview due to the smaller map, missing shards or side quests but also tighter abilities. Also preferred BF's individual save spots and ghost portals. Ghost portals in WotW just weren't the same.

Welp, that's all that came to my mind spontaneously. I wouldn't declare a clear winner, tbh. Both are great while one game might be stronger in one area than the other.