Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
However the first game is pretty short and pretty cheap and it still has a lot of fans. So it's worthwhile to play it first.
Yes, there is a story, so the sequel obviously makes more sense if you play The Forest first.
SOTF just hit 1.0 so it's not in early access anymore. Personally, I still think The Forest is more buggy than SOTF but your experience may vary.
I've read about the three legged/arm chick and the deaf guy that does chores and while they seem kind of a weird inclusion, they don't seem to take away much from the game.
I love how you go around spreading a bunch of crap about how people are.
And then you go and say crap like this.
"Yeah first game is better just because uuuhhh it is and I said so"
Like bruh
Play both. HIGHLY reccomend playing the first game before the second.
And dont let all of these ppl that literally DO NOT understand how the forest works fool you.
Sons of The Forest is everything The Forest was just done 10x better and with more polish. Anyone saying otherwise is trying to get a rise out of ppl who enjoy the game. Or are simply just upset because the game didn't meet THEIR expectations.
It met ours, the community agrees all together.
Which is one thing those people cannot ignore. Is the thousands of reviews making the games current standing "Very Positive".
The second game feels more like a real place, with birds chirping and running rivers and some gorgeous scenery, plus you've got a companion right from the start of the game, so right out of the gate it feels noticeably less creepy.
The Forest feels pretty dated at this point. The graphics are not very good; the lighting is bad. The map is tiny. There's one point of interest in the center and one area where the cannibals have their base. Almost all the action takes place underground, in the caves, which are connected in a sort of sprawling network.
Sons of the Forest's map is huge. There are cannibal camps scattered all over it. There are also abandoned camps you can investigate for loot. We still have the caves underground, but their design is a little different. The caves are a little more linear; with a single entrance and exit and most have a fairly direct path to the item you need. There is no underground mapping at all, which can make for a tough experience if you get turned around and lost. There is also a lot more enemy variety, which can make for a nasty surprise when one of the tougher enemies jumps out of the dark.
Speaking of mapping! That was one big change in SOTF. In The Forest, the map fills in as you explore, like you're drawing it by hand. In SOTF, you have a GPS and a couple of important locations are marked on it at the start of the game. As you explore, the game adds more points to the GPS. Both systems have their pros and cons but I think the GPS makes more sense for a larger game. There are still some elements not marked on the GPS at all, so exploring is still important.
Bunkers are a new feature in SOTF. Basically new underground areas, functionally similar to the caves but with a modern feel. I won't describe them as they connect to the story.
Speaking of story! I do think The Forest had a good, clear storyline with a neat twist at the end. SOTF really goes crazy with the storyline, dropping in tons of different elements and while I do really enjoy it, it is a bit of a mess and it did not have quite the same impact as the first game. This is a big reason why I recommend playing the first game first!
Anyway, I'm just trying to articulate some of the differences between the games. Both are worth playing, but at this point I prefer the second one by far. It's bigger, it has more weapons and enemies, more varied exploration (not just caves) plus vehicles and I just think it's way more fun overall.
It did make some changes to the overall tone and the general formula, but I think the changes made sense and make the sequel feel like a fresher experience, and not just a re-make of the first game (another reason why both games are worth playing).
I'll most likely play both eventually, but I'm gonna start with The Forest first, especially now knowing that there's a story line that connects the two. Good thing I asked since I originally thought it had the same level of story as 7 days to die, which is to say, barely any.
Will get SotF on the next sale.
Sure bud.
Keep telling yourself that.
And Im quite aware others say the same thing.
You guys are fortunately, very very out numbered in terms of reviews and how everyone is actually enjoying themselves and the game.
given you used the reviews as an argument thinking you got them there the first game has a BETTER review score and has MORE reviews ON TOP. how come thats the case if any of your stuff from the first post is even remotely true? by your very own logic that shouldnt be the case. this game should have better reviews given your claims there. there is only 1 actual logical conclusion from this simple fact.
and YOU arent the community. pretending to be speaking for an entire community is some surefire way to come off super arrogant.