In your opinion

[RIGATONI ✯]

Did you prefer this game? Or the first Plague Tale game?

I personally prefer the second game than the first one. I don't get why people prefer the first game, I feel like this game has been heavily improved when it came to story, side characters, and everything else. I'll admit, a lot of things in this game weren't great especially towards the end when we see the return but other than that I loved it.

[Furry Chipmunk]

In my opinion the story was more interesting in Innocence and game was more dynamic. In Requiem we have more wandering and - on the other side - too much exhausting combat. I just felt tired in the second half of Requiem. Innocence was more balanced acton-adventure from the beginning until the very end. Anyway, Requiem is more beautiful. It was made for connoisseurs 😉

[RIGATONI ✯]

Originally posted by Furry Chipmunk:

In my opinion the story was more interesting in Innocence and game was more dynamic. In Requiem we have more wandering and - on the other side - too much exhausting combat. I just felt tired in the second half of Requiem. Innocence was more balanced acton-adventure from the beginning until the very end. Anyway, Requiem is more beautiful.

Innocence drove me crazy. I hated half the side characters, especially Mellie. Requiem for me wasn't bad but I felt like we were on a wild goose chase the entire time. I love A Plague Tale series but the side characters felt so underwhelming to me. Sophia wasn't bad but I did get annoyed with her whole "now I have a debt to pay" or something.

[Mr.Hope]

I think there are subjects where Innocence and Requiem are superior in their own way. For example, innocence is better in terms of story pace and side characters. The story of Requiem is very strong, especially the end of the game is one of the most impressive endings in the history of the game, but there are serious problems in the pace of the story, it was very well balanced in this first game. Other than that, the Requiem is superior to the first game in every aspect. Even though this was a difficult decision for me, I would prefer Requiem.

[RIGATONI ✯]

Originally posted by Mr.Hope:

I think there are subjects where Innocence and Requiem are superior in their own way. For example, innocence is better in terms of story pace and side characters. The story of Requiem is very strong, especially the end of the game is one of the most impressive endings in the history of the game, but there are serious problems in the pace of the story, it was very well balanced in this first game. Other than that, the Requiem is superior to the first game in every aspect. Even though this was a difficult decision for me, I would prefer Requiem.

This might just be me, but the side characters were unbearable. I don't understand why so many people liked them. Robert died in the dumbest way. Mellie was just wow, hated her. Arthur wasn't bad but I he died so quickly.

[Bankai9212]

I prefer the first, goes off the rails in the second half which the sequel could have expanded but essentially dropped everything. Narrative here feels like it doesn’t really know what to do with obvious plot twists. As for side characters only one with you long enough to care is Sophie. The knight character wasn’t around for me to care. Pacing requiem has more combat which would be fine they improved which they didn’t. Just more unnecessary upgrade systems and less puzzles.

[Wyrtt]

SEcond is a huge dissapointment. Story is too long for what little it can offer. They failed to develop good combat and changing flow of the game from 80% stealth and 20 combat to opposite was a mistake.

[RIGATONI ✯]

I disagree, I feel like adding combat was a great introductory point. It showed that Amicia grew stronger and wasn't some fragile helpless person. But I do agree, the story was too long for the little things they offered. The problem is, some of the chapters felt useless. Amicia's friend/mom were brought back into the story way too late. Not to mention, the whole plot to me felt like a wild goose chase, it felt pointless. It could've gone in a better direction tbh. But I most definitely prefer it over the first game

[Bankai9212]

Amicia was already proven to be very strong in the first game though, racking a massive body count by the end of the game for god sake's she defeats a rat pope as the final boss. All this game gives her is the crossbow and that's it. Even then it still forces auto-aim so combat like puzzles hasn't progressed at all. Going from innocence to requiem it's obvious the writer had zero clue where to take the narrative, especially with how the second half of the first game goes.

[RIGATONI ✯]

That's true, I wish Amicia could've wielded something else. I'm thinking something like a sword or something, just to spice thigns up;

[Bankai9212]

Given what happens in this game, most she could handle is a dagger and possibly a light short sword.

[Mr.Hope]

Originally posted by Bankai9212:

Amicia was already proven to be very strong in the first game though, racking a massive body count by the end of the game for god sake's she defeats a rat pope as the final boss. All this game gives her is the crossbow and that's it. Even then it still forces auto-aim so combat like puzzles hasn't progressed at all. Going from innocence to requiem it's obvious the writer had zero clue where to take the narrative, especially with how the second half of the first game goes.

I disagree with you that Combat is not progressing. The crossbow and blade were just the right additions. You forget that Amicia is 15 years old, I think it would be a little unreasonable for her to use a sword. Although Amicia was stronger than the first game, she was never focused on killing, she said, even when using a knife, I do it when I have to. You can also turn off auto-aim completely in the settings.

[The Phasmid]

Roughly halfway through. They're both beautiful looking games in their own regard. Requiem is more vast with its vistas, but Innocence makes that up by having more varied landscapes. Innocence is more colorful, but also slightly more "corridor" like than Requiem. That's not to say Requiem doesn't have very linear sections either.

It can't be denied Innocence has better pacing. There are certain areas where I feel like the stealth is padding out gameplay time in Requiem. I sometimes question if a particular chapter needs this much stealth. Requiem requires more puzzle solving/strategic elements, so I definitely enjoyed that more.

Honestly, I believe both games are technical achievements. Innocence still holds up in terms of its graphical fidelity. It comes down to what gameplay elements you prefer, and if you enjoy a game that is more deliberate, i.e. slower, with its pacing (Requiem).

[gbuglyo]

I prefer the gameplay and visuals of the second game, but story-wise, the first game is the winner in my book (by far). I also wrote a review comparing the two games, here:

https://steamcommunity.com/id/gbuglyo/recommended/1182900/

[Bankai9212]

Originally posted by Mr.Hope:

Originally posted by Bankai9212:

Amicia was already proven to be very strong in the first game though, racking a massive body count by the end of the game for god sake's she defeats a rat pope as the final boss. All this game gives her is the crossbow and that's it. Even then it still forces auto-aim so combat like puzzles hasn't progressed at all. Going from innocence to requiem it's obvious the writer had zero clue where to take the narrative, especially with how the second half of the first game goes.

I disagree with you that Combat is not progressing. The crossbow and blade were just the right additions. You forget that Amicia is 15 years old, I think it would be a little unreasonable for her to use a sword. Although Amicia was stronger than the first game, she was never focused on killing, she said, even when using a knife, I do it when I have to. You can also turn off auto-aim completely in the settings.

It barely adds anything, the crossbow is just the sling without infinite ammo or needed to aim for an enemies head, hardly game changing. Pretty sure you had a blade for killing guards in the first game. As for killing the game ever focused on her first kill then she kills in droves by the end.

[kristijan.123]

Originally posted by Bankai9212:

Originally posted by Mr.Hope:

I disagree with you that Combat is not progressing. The crossbow and blade were just the right additions. You forget that Amicia is 15 years old, I think it would be a little unreasonable for her to use a sword. Although Amicia was stronger than the first game, she was never focused on killing, she said, even when using a knife, I do it when I have to. You can also turn off auto-aim completely in the settings.

It barely adds anything, the crossbow is just the sling without infinite ammo or needed to aim for an enemies head, hardly game changing. Pretty sure you had a blade for killing guards in the first game. As for killing the game ever focused on her first kill then she kills in droves by the end.

The crossbow is more than "just a sling without infinite ammo", it is used for taking down enemies with helmets as well as firing rope arrows (neither can be done with a sling), it can also fire flame arrows into wooden surface to create a light source in distant area (usefull when you have to go through a large rat-infested area, with no torces in it and having to carry a wodeen stick that lasts 10 secs., The blade was also not available in the first game, so it's new addition, instead you had devorantis (forgive me if I confused this with some other thing - I haven't played the first game in a while, so I don't know if that is the actual name of it), you could use it to stealthlly kill enemies or as a last resort against someone who is about to kill Amicia.