This or FP1...?

[Kilo_60]

Thanks!

[Kirioz]

Honestly, the two are quite different. The first is fantastic but very short and you barely master the basic mechanics, it's quite easy and repetitive, the story is short but very good..

The second one has more possibilities for variation in the strategy to face the cold and replayability, with which factions you decide to ally yourself, how you expand, etc. It's also longer than the first one, the bad side is that the story is no longer as melodramatic as the first one.

I like both equally, although as I mentioned before they are different.

[LightManMage]

FP1 is more of a unique city builder - puzzle like where placement is key and fiddling around with road placement and build orders and layouts matter a lot but each campaign/scenario have solutions (with fewer solutions based on the difficulty).

FP2 is more of a generic city builder from what I've seen. The more unique aspect about it is the faction-council system which is a bit like how Tropico handles factions.

Edit: Obviously I'm biased towards FP1, but FP2's enjoyable for city builder fans still especially if you like the frostpunk aesthetics. For me I loved how FP1 handled building the city and those core mechanics aren't in FP2.

[Eltoron]

If you have not played FP1 I'll advise to start from playing main FP1 scenarios. At least New London and than Last Autumn. In terms of storytelling it's important. Because FP1 is a story of collapse. And FP2 is a story of rebuilding after the collapse in a new world.

[Hauken]

FP 1 because you are more connected with your citizens thus more immersion is gained, the choices being made is/feels more impactful e.t.c

FP 2 cant compare to this, but then again it has it its own features which is really cool.

[_m_a_]

First game was about mico economy management. This one is all about macro management. Some may don't like this, but i think its better. Soundtracks still feel the same which is good for me. I believe that graphics could been better though.

[Anonymous2013]

It depends, people are somewhat unhappy with Frostpunk 2.

Frostpunk felt very rushed and brief as an experience/story. You were allowed to micro manage your workforce, build roads, plan out your city's "districts", and most importantly your word was law and people had to follow it. I always felt like I had to hurry up or else I won't build a strong city, the only time I felt Frostpunk was at its best was building the Generator in Endless mode.

Frostpunk 2 is a lot bigger in comparison. Your city needs to grow fast to cope with the massive population income. On lower difficulties you can take your time developing, exploring, building, expanding. So you get to enjoy the experience a bit more.
People forget that here, you're not the Captain, you're a placeholder with some authority that people don't trust. So you need to prove that you can not only lead the city but also keep the growing factions in check since they can become outright hostile if unhappy, leading to protests, bloodshed, civil war, or destroying your city if you have no armed forces.

So I think Frostpunk 2 is just as good as its predecesor and gives you more freedom to explore the Frostlands.

[Silhouette Fleur]

Frost Punk 1.

It's better in almost every aspect.

[Lascerandi]

As others have said, both are fantastic, different, games. FP1 gameplay is different from FP2 gameplay but the enviroment is the same. I love both games. Play FP1 first for the story as Eltoron has stated.

There's a reason alot of people are dissapointed with FP2 since FP1 atmospheric storytelling feels on another level compared to FP2.

[Ferrar]

both

[Nei]

Originally posted by LightManMage:

FP1 is more of a unique city builder - puzzle like where placement is key and fiddling around with road placement and build orders and layouts matter a lot but each campaign/scenario have solutions (with fewer solutions based on the difficulty).

FP2 is more of a generic city builder from what I've seen. The more unique aspect about it is the faction-council system which is a bit like how Tropico handles factions.

Edit: Obviously I'm biased towards FP1, but FP2's enjoyable for city builder fans still especially if you like the frostpunk aesthetics. For me I loved how FP1 handled building the city and those core mechanics aren't in FP2.

I personally don;t think FP2 does a good job of being a city builder, it's kinda like if you said Civilization was a city builder. You just set what different hexagons are, but you don't really build a city in a typical city builder way...

[phoenixds24]

Why not both? They're pretty different games.

[Ragnarr Loðbrók]

FP1

[Raptor Jesus]

Try fp1 while its on sale , if you didn't get it free on EGS. If you like it, wait for fp2 to go on sale.

[Eltoron]

Originally posted by LightManMage:

puzzle like where placement is key and fiddling around with road placement and build orders and layouts matter a lot but each campaign/scenario have solutions (with fewer solutions based on the difficulty).

Actually they keep this aspect with all those hubs and neighbouring bonuses. And this is what I don't like in FP 1. The main area mechanics of heating was perfect and this one was completely enough for me. And roads in most cases was not so important because buildings works by assigned people and it was not important if they actually get to workplaces (I was very disappointed first time I found it).

[MechaMarshmallow]

The games are both fantastic and very different, but I'd play FP1 first if you plan on playing both eventually. 2 is a sequel, so you might as well play them in order for the narrative.