My review, this is not game for hardcore Frostpunk 1 fans

[kylix999]

This review is very important to me because I am a huge fan of the first game. I purchased the deluxe edition and participated in the beta. First of all, Frostpunk 2 can be a good game in its own right. If it were the first game in the franchise, I wouldn't have any issues with it. However, the problem is that the first game set certain expectations for many of us.

My review won't have much impact on Frostpunk 2's reception; the game is already a big success, and I am happy for 11bit Studios—they deserve it.

The first problem is the name itself. "Frostpunk 2" sets certain expectations for people who played the first game. Many people on the forum mentioned that they preordered the game without watching most of the marketing materials. For some of them, the game deviates too much from the original. In Frostpunk 2, you don't build a city; you only build districts. You don't see individual people, and so on. Of course, there is another group that thinks this is a good approach, and they have the right to their opinion as well.

I think the game should not have "2" in the title, at least. It sets the expectation for many that it will be like the first one but better, an evolution, but this game flipped the table. A better name would be "Frostpunk 1916," which would indicate that it's a game set in the same universe but is entirely different.

Another issue is that the prologue is not the best experience. Many people expressed that they felt lost and didn't know what to click or how to proceed. I don't think the developer's response to read the written tutorial accessed with the T key is a good solution. The game should have pop-ups that teach how to play. I believe 11bit will address this in the future.

For me, the biggest problem is that the game is not a city builder. It has city-builder elements like the first Frostpunk, but it feels more like a Civilization game. Heat management, placing buildings, and constructing roads are core city-builder experiences for me and many gamers. Of course, if someone likes the new mechanics, that's great, but for me, it's the biggest turn-off. However, who knows—maybe modders will expand the game and add these mechanics. In fact, I think 11bit should release modding tools for the first Frostpunk so modders can extend that game.

I think the graphics look nice and quite detailed.

To conclude, if you are a hardcore fan of the first Frostpunk and its city-building mechanics, you might be disappointed. If you enjoy games like Civilization or Urban Empire, you might like it a lot.

Also, remember that the original Frostpunk gameplay was adapted into a mobile game, so I think it was intentional to make the second game as different as possible. To me, it feels like a marketing decision. When I play Need for Speed, I expect the next Need for Speed to be a racing game as well. When I purchased Frostpunk 2, I expected the city-builder gameplay loop of the first Frostpunk but instead got a Civilization-like game. Imagine if Need for Speed fans received a car mechanic simulator as the next installment—it feels similar to that.

The game is not for me, but congratulations to 11bit. I hope Frostpunk 3 will be better. For those who enjoy Frostpunk 2, I'm happy for you, and I hope you have a great time with the game!

[Crunchy[Daz]]

Contrary to popular belief, Frostpunk 1 doesn't stop existing because this game came along. Stop wanting every game to be the same.

[Silhouette Fleur]

Ursprungligen skrivet av CrunchyDaz:

Contrary to popular belief, Frostpunk 1 doesn't stop existing because this game came along. Stop wanting every game to be the same.

Here's the thing.

The first game?
I'd love to play a sequel to that game.

This second game?
I don't want to see its sequel, I don't even want to play this one, why would I want to play what comes after it?

To add insult to injury, this one is going to have mod support, but it's just going to result in more hex tile rubbish.

[muhmaff]

Ursprungligen skrivet av kylix999:

This review is very important to me because I am a huge fan of the first game.

I am too, but my opinion is completly different from you. FP1 was amazing and FP2 is again amazing. Why should a game have another name, when it's not a clone with updates like Civilization is or many other games.

I really like the challenges in FP*. FP2, in his easiest level needs to thinks a little for next steps. Unfortunately, it becomes less challenging after the first half, but there are higher levels of difficulty.

[kylix999]

Ursprungligen skrivet av muhmaff:

Ursprungligen skrivet av kylix999:

This review is very important to me because I am a huge fan of the first game.

I am too, but my opinion is completly different from you. FP1 was amazing and FP2 is again amazing. Why should a game have another name, when it's not a clone with updates like Civilization is or many other games.

I really like the challenges in FP*. FP2, in his easiest level needs to thinks a little for next steps. Unfortunately, it becomes less challenging after the first half, but there are higher levels of difficulty.

When millons of people played starcraft what they expected from starcraft 2?
District builder?
No people got improved StarCraft formula in second game and all were happy.
Different name would indicate different mechanics and approach to the world.
So what Frostpunk 3 should be? First Person Shooter in Frostpunk world? Like animals hunter simulator? Or coal mine operator?
I the end they achived it, frostpunk 2 become Accountant simulator

[Quill]

Ursprungligen skrivet av kylix999:

Ursprungligen skrivet av muhmaff:

I am too, but my opinion is completly different from you. FP1 was amazing and FP2 is again amazing. Why should a game have another name, when it's not a clone with updates like Civilization is or many other games.

I really like the challenges in FP*. FP2, in his easiest level needs to thinks a little for next steps. Unfortunately, it becomes less challenging after the first half, but there are higher levels of difficulty.

When millons of people played starcraft what they expected from starcraft 2?
District builder?
No people got improved StarCraft formula in second game and all were happy.
Different name would indicate different mechanics and approach to the world.
So what Frostpunk 3 should be? First Person Shooter in Frostpunk world? Like animals hunter simulator? Or coal mine operator?
I the end they achived it, frostpunk 2 become Accountant simulator

Not every sequel must be the same game but slightly different. It's not a bad thing for it to completely change.

As mentioned many times over the many different discussions. The scale of FP2 is not compatible with the mechanics of FP1. We could not manage a city of tens of thousands in a believable way with the style of building in FP1.

Assuming there even *is* a Frostpunk 3, and it continues to follow the trend of scaling up, then I wager it would be more like a nation builder. Spanning regions instead of a city and its colonies.

Your Starcraft 2 analogy is poor. Starcraft is an RTS first, with a story as a secondary.

Frostpunk has always been Story first, gameplay second. In that vein, FP2 is a good sequel. And I personally got exactly what I was expecting; More story in the Frostlands.

[Silhouette Fleur]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Quill:

Ursprungligen skrivet av kylix999:

When millons of people played starcraft what they expected from starcraft 2?
District builder?
No people got improved StarCraft formula in second game and all were happy.
Different name would indicate different mechanics and approach to the world.
So what Frostpunk 3 should be? First Person Shooter in Frostpunk world? Like animals hunter simulator? Or coal mine operator?
I the end they achived it, frostpunk 2 become Accountant simulator

Not every sequel must be the same game but slightly different. It's not a bad thing for it to completely change.

As mentioned many times over the many different discussions. The scale of FP2 is not compatible with the mechanics of FP1. We could not manage a city of tens of thousands in a believable way with the style of building in FP1.

Assuming there even *is* a Frostpunk 3, and it continues to follow the trend of scaling up, then I wager it would be more like a nation builder. Spanning regions instead of a city and its colonies.

Your Starcraft 2 analogy is poor. Starcraft is an RTS first, with a story as a secondary.

Frostpunk has always been Story first, gameplay second. In that vein, FP2 is a good sequel. And I personally got exactly what I was expecting; More story in the Frostlands.

Then the obvious answer is they should have scaled it down.

In FP 1, it's possible to sustain 700 to 1,000 citizens.
Not practical, but possible.

Generally that is in Endless Mode of some description, as story missions seldom play that long or that nicely.

By that point, it's safe to say most research is done, everything is mechanised.

Were such things as mods available in 1, one of many things I would have enjoyed is stackable vertical housing, alongside more city decorations but that's neither here nor there.

Suffice it to say, a map like Winter Home could likely hold several thousand people just in the "crater" alone.

Frostpunk 2 doesn't allow us to build much of anything in the singular, but I'm pleased to see even 11 Bit figured it'd look a bit like Kowloon, with folk living on top of each other.

I think a "1.5" actually could have achieved this scale, I really do.
FP 2 in a lot of ways only looks bigger, a couple of zeros added at the end of figures, while the landscape is "bigger", it's also just about the same land size to work with.

And normally, I would agree, change is not a bad thing, but the caveat is changing things too much too soon alienates people, much of the visual familiarity is gone with the UI, unnecessarily, a bunch of little tweaks are adding to the shock.

[kylix999]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Quill:

Your Starcraft 2 analogy is poor. Starcraft is an RTS first, with a story as a secondary.

What are You talking about?
Sta Craft was always about survival war, it was never rts first!

[오르필액4ml]

당신의 생각에 동의합니다. 저는 이 게임이 Frostpunk1과 너무 다르다고 생각했습니다. 내가 원한 게임이 아니었어요. Civilization을 두고 이 게임을 할 이유가 없습니다.

[Licenturion]

Frostpunk 3 will probably be a first person survival crafting game where you have to build your own outpost in the snow and Frostpunk 4 a card game with faction deckbuilding :D

[SIX]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Quill:

Ursprungligen skrivet av kylix999:

When millons of people played starcraft what they expected from starcraft 2?
District builder?
No people got improved StarCraft formula in second game and all were happy.
Different name would indicate different mechanics and approach to the world.
So what Frostpunk 3 should be? First Person Shooter in Frostpunk world? Like animals hunter simulator? Or coal mine operator?
I the end they achived it, frostpunk 2 become Accountant simulator

Not every sequel must be the same game but slightly different. It's not a bad thing for it to completely change.

As mentioned many times over the many different discussions. The scale of FP2 is not compatible with the mechanics of FP1. We could not manage a city of tens of thousands in a believable way with the style of building in FP1.

Assuming there even *is* a Frostpunk 3, and it continues to follow the trend of scaling up, then I wager it would be more like a nation builder. Spanning regions instead of a city and its colonies.

Your Starcraft 2 analogy is poor. Starcraft is an RTS first, with a story as a secondary.

Frostpunk has always been Story first, gameplay second. In that vein, FP2 is a good sequel. And I personally got exactly what I was expecting; More story in the Frostlands.

With that logic city skyline II should be a nation builder also.... I'm also baffled by that claim that somehow FP1 was story first....

[ZmonS]

i back to play frostpunk 1 after end story mode. i just realized how frostpunk 1 is very very best game ever made. it can not be comparable, like a car compare to USS Enterprise. so don't compare frostpunk 2 with frostpunk 1

[kylix999]

Ursprungligen skrivet av 오르필액4ml:

당신의 생각에 동의합니다. 저는 이 게임이 Frostpunk1과 너무 다르다고 생각했습니다. 내가 원한 게임이 아니었어요. Civilization을 두고 이 게임을 할 이유가 없습니다.

From Korean deepl:

"I agree with your thoughts. I thought this game was too different from Frostpunk1, it wasn't what I wanted, and there's no reason to play this game over Civilisation."

Thank You brother!

[kylix999]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Licenturion:

Frostpunk 3 will probably be a first person survival crafting game where you have to build your own outpost in the snow and Frostpunk 4 a card game with faction deckbuilding :D

How dare You Frostpunk was never crafting game or card game, true Frostpunk will be 5th game in franchise as mining worker simulator: only tears, coal and blood, everyday!

[Quill]

Ursprungligen skrivet av SIX:

With that logic city skyline II should be a nation builder also.... I'm also baffled by that claim that somehow FP1 was story first....

Well, no. Because we're talking about Frostpunk, not Cities Skylines. 11Bit stated very early on that they were going to massively increase the scale and scope from FP1. So it's not some "grand logic" to be applied to all games of the genre.

As for how it's a story first game. Think about when it first released. There was no endless mode. Only scenarios. Most of which were short, but story driven. With lots of different endings and failstates depending on how you played and what you did. Frostpunk revolves around the story of New London.

[Quill]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Silhouette Fleur:

Then the obvious answer is they should have scaled it down.

Then it wouldn't have been as impactful. Managing a few thousand is quite different to bearing the weight and ambitions of tens of thousands. [/quote]

In FP 1, it's possible to sustain 700 to 1,000 citizens.
Not practical, but possible.

Technically speaking in Endless Mode, so long as settlements are on, you can have infinite population. But that's not really practical.

Generally that is in Endless Mode of some description, as story missions seldom play that long or that nicely.

By that point, it's safe to say most research is done, everything is mechanised.

Were such things as mods available in 1, one of many things I would have enjoyed is stackable vertical housing, alongside more city decorations but that's neither here nor there.

It would have been amazing to have mods in FP1, yeah. A pity we did not.

Suffice it to say, a map like Winter Home could likely hold several thousand people just in the "crater" alone.

Frostpunk 2 doesn't allow us to build much of anything in the singular, but I'm pleased to see even 11 Bit figured it'd look a bit like Kowloon, with folk living on top of each other.

I think a "1.5" actually could have achieved this scale, I really do.
FP 2 in a lot of ways only looks bigger, a couple of zeros added at the end of figures, while the landscape is "bigger", it's also just about the same land size to work with.

I do agree by and large with the sentiment that FP2 lost a lot of the same charm as FP1 through scaling up. But I really don't think the same sort of story could have been achieved with out it.

And normally, I would agree, change is not a bad thing, but the caveat is changing things too much too soon alienates people, much of the visual familiarity is gone with the UI, unnecessarily, a bunch of little tweaks are adding to the shock.

If people don't like the change, that's fine. FP1 is still there to play. And depending on the scope and ability of mods and modders, you might even get the things you want in FP2.