Differences between Frostpunk 1 and 2

[adrien_perleflamme]

I think I have realized something. I think some people who played FP 1 are not heavy city builder players and, beyond bugs and UI inconsistencies, it may be a reason they don't like the game. Let me explain.

I see a few people comparing FP 2 with Civilization and complaining about micromanagement. Yet, there also is a lot of micromanagement in FP 1 and the fact of showing production units as buildings or as districts including optional buildings is more or less inconsequential, gameplay wise (it's just a bit more complex to handle). But, there is a key difference between FP 1 and FP 2: the number of resources for which you have to handle constantly evolving consumption.

In FP 1, traditionally speaking, you had only 2 resources that were consumed: food and fuel. And that's it. With some key story events, you had goals to spend other resources, but nothing that consumes anything else over time or anything without you fully controlling it (notably charcoal from wood, which you can turn off as you see fit and a lot of people claimed they didn't use charcoal, despite it being extremely powerful). Anything else was just resource spending to build and research, not consumption over time. This makes FP 1 a very casual city builder (and some people even complained about that). On top of that, politics was very simple: only two global resources (hope and discontent) and at most two groups of people to handle (workers and engineers, New Londoners willing to leave and such): with at most a binary political choice (order / faith) a lot of people complained about as not complex enough.

So, when FP 2 offers a more complex city builder with a lot of buildings with different consumption, and more resource types that get consumed over time, it's a lot to take in. On top of that, it offers a more complex political structure, with at least 4 factions to deal with, aligned among 3 political axes for 2 of them. On top of having to deal with a global tension level, you also need to deal with the relations with each faction and with 5 basic needs.

And that's a lot more than in FP 1. So, I can understand some people were turned off by the much heavier city builder and political aspects of FP 2, despite the fact there are more story bits of specific people, more choices about what to do.

Let me know what you think.

[The old man]

Originally posted by adrien_perleflamme:

I think I have realized something. I think some people who played FP 1 are not heavy city builder players and, beyond bugs and UI inconsistencies, it may be a reason they don't like the game. Let me explain.

I see a few people comparing FP 2 with Civilization and complaining about micromanagement. Yet, there also is a lot of micromanagement in FP 1 and the fact of showing production units as buildings or as districts including optional buildings is more or less inconsequential, gameplay wise (it's just a bit more complex to handle). But, there is a key difference between FP 1 and FP 2: the number of resources for which you have to handle constantly evolving consumption.

In FP 1, traditionally speaking, you had only 2 resources that were consumed: food and fuel. And that's it. With some key story events, you had goals to spend other resources, but nothing that consumes anything else over time or anything without you fully controlling it (notably charcoal from wood, which you can turn off as you see fit and a lot of people claimed they didn't use charcoal, despite it being extremely powerful). Anything else was just resource spending to build and research, not consumption over time. This makes FP 1 a very casual city builder (and some people even complained about that). On top of that, politics was very simple: only two global resources (hope and discontent) and at most two groups of people to handle (workers and engineers, New Londoners willing to leave and such): with at most a binary political choice (order / faith) a lot of people complained about as not complex enough.

So, when FP 2 offers a more complex city builder with a lot of buildings with different consumption, and more resource types that get consumed over time, it's a lot to take in. On top of that, it offers a more complex political structure, with at least 4 factions to deal with, aligned among 3 political axes for 2 of them. On top of having to deal with a global tension level, you also need to deal with the relations with each faction and with 5 basic needs.

And that's a lot more than in FP 1. So, I can understand some people were turned off by the much heavier city builder and political aspects of FP 2, despite the fact there are more story bits of specific people, more choices about what to do.

Let me know what you think.

There is a lot more to the FP 2 but less of what made FP 1 the game it was. You don't actually build any of the districts. In FP 1 you placed the roads and buildings and every other aspect of how you wanted the city or district to be and look like. You had to actually interact with the area making changes to keep it going. FP 2 you get to point and click a generic area into existence.Then you point and click and wow look it changed. I want to build the area not just place a district and say OK what's next. I Like the game for what they added but I want a game I have to actually play. This game has a generic choose your own adventure book feel. I tried to like it and played the game for awhile but his game is like watching paint dry.

[adrien_perleflamme]

Just nitpicking: you say you want to "actually play", but your criticism has nothing to do with gameplay itself, though: it's about graphics, aspect of how you want the city to look like. Still valid concern, obviously, but not the same thing as gameplay. You do build the districts in FP 2 as much as you built the buildings in FP 1, through as much complexity (if not more, given you decide about tile placement in tiles rather than just placing a whole thing and at most deciding about its orientation) in FP 2 as in FP1.

Not that the confusion bothers me, but wanting the city to look one way or another isn't related to having a choose your own adventure book. Gameplay-wise, you have the same choices, if not much more of them in FP 2 than in FP 1. Actually, it would make much more sense to claim FP 1 is a choose your own adventure book than to claim the same about FP 2, don't you think?

[Kara!]

Totally agree (and I am a HC fan of FP1)

[Summersong]

Originally posted by The old man:

Originally posted by adrien_perleflamme:

I think I have realized something. I think some people who played FP 1 are not heavy city builder players and, beyond bugs and UI inconsistencies, it may be a reason they don't like the game. Let me explain.

I see a few people comparing FP 2 with Civilization and complaining about micromanagement. Yet, there also is a lot of micromanagement in FP 1 and the fact of showing production units as buildings or as districts including optional buildings is more or less inconsequential, gameplay wise (it's just a bit more complex to handle). But, there is a key difference between FP 1 and FP 2: the number of resources for which you have to handle constantly evolving consumption.

In FP 1, traditionally speaking, you had only 2 resources that were consumed: food and fuel. And that's it. With some key story events, you had goals to spend other resources, but nothing that consumes anything else over time or anything without you fully controlling it (notably charcoal from wood, which you can turn off as you see fit and a lot of people claimed they didn't use charcoal, despite it being extremely powerful). Anything else was just resource spending to build and research, not consumption over time. This makes FP 1 a very casual city builder (and some people even complained about that). On top of that, politics was very simple: only two global resources (hope and discontent) and at most two groups of people to handle (workers and engineers, New Londoners willing to leave and such): with at most a binary political choice (order / faith) a lot of people complained about as not complex enough.

So, when FP 2 offers a more complex city builder with a lot of buildings with different consumption, and more resource types that get consumed over time, it's a lot to take in. On top of that, it offers a more complex political structure, with at least 4 factions to deal with, aligned among 3 political axes for 2 of them. On top of having to deal with a global tension level, you also need to deal with the relations with each faction and with 5 basic needs.

And that's a lot more than in FP 1. So, I can understand some people were turned off by the much heavier city builder and political aspects of FP 2, despite the fact there are more story bits of specific people, more choices about what to do.

Let me know what you think.

There is a lot more to the FP 2 but less of what made FP 1 the game it was. You don't actually build any of the districts. In FP 1 you placed the roads and buildings and every other aspect of how you wanted the city or district to be and look like. You had to actually interact with the area making changes to keep it going. FP 2 you get to point and click a generic area into existence.Then you point and click and wow look it changed. I want to build the area not just place a district and say OK what's next. I Like the game for what they added but I want a game I have to actually play. This game has a generic choose your own adventure book feel. I tried to like it and played the game for awhile but his game is like watching paint dry.

That sounds like a Recc for FP2. Who wants to piss about with micromanagement that doesn't ever offer you much actual meaningful choice? Cut the fat, focus on the choices that matter.