This is not Frostpunk

[Spicy Grasshopper]

Everything about it is wrong.

When you start the focus isnt on the generator, its on breaking ice with machines that just appear out of the snow.
Where did the circular design pattern, focused around the generator, you know the thing keeping everyone alive and warm, where did that go?
Why is it now focused on a civ styled hex system with districts?
Why are there no more roads to place?
The frostbreaking mechanic as a small part would have been fine, but now that seems to be one of the main mechanics of gameplay.

When you change this many things, you are no longer making a sequel, maybe in name but not in spirit and not in practice.

The whole point of the first one was the huddled mass trying to stay warm and beat the odds of titanic cold and resource deprivation.

This one is about gamifying mechanics and creating outposts/small villages, it feels nothing like the first one.

[VukasinDordevic]

What I hate is that the disctricts AUTOMATICLY have warm. There is no logic in it. In Frostpunk 1 there was more logic.

[Captain Flappy]

no... it's frostpunk 2.

If you want frostpunk go and play it. :/

[Partyrock]

I miss the people crowded around the core.

[Carinthian Oak]

The first one was much smaller in scale compared to the 2nd one. There are now thousands of people living there, so it has some sort of own infrastructure where you cant build every little thing, makes sense to me.

[EJR]

It's Frostpunk 2, the changes to the core mechanics is the reason why it has the 2 in its name. Besides, the idea of the sequel is that you are managing and developing a sprawling metropolis, not a small settlement like in the original.

[Kyllin]

you don't even have the game.

[naapsuland]

it looks like you want to play frostpunk one , there no point to make another game and keep everything like the 1 st one , makes no sense to me

[Spicy Grasshopper]

Originally posted by EJR:

It's Frostpunk 2, the changes to the core mechanics is the reason why it has the 2 in its name. Besides, the idea of the sequel is that you are managing and developing a sprawling metropolis, not a small settlement like in the original.

Ok you are flat out wrong.
You dont change core mechanics in ANY sequel if they work.
If they didnt work then you change them, because they dont work.

If you change them when they worked, then what happens is exactly what is happening- people lose interest and complain because its got nothing in common with the first.
Its not a true sequel, its an entirely different game skin suiting as a sequel.

I've already refunded and am going back to the first one.
Because that one actually was unique in its mechanical design.

This one I have about a dozen games that utilise the same or similar mechanics, such as districting, clearing land with tiles, etc.

The first offered a unique experience of trying to resource manage (Wood, coal, wellbeing, etc) around a central piece (The generator) that consumed more over time based on various buildings and settings, whilst outlasting an impending apocalypse.

EDIT: Imagine changing Tomb Raider from a third person game to a first person game and saying its ok because its still called Tomb Raider. Youve changed a core mechanic of the design (Third person). OR a racing game from cars to bikes but still calling it the same as the car one.

You have changed core parts that have now altered the experience, you should be making that very clear, not just in the description but in the titling and making it clear its not a direct sequel and does not retain most of the core mechanics.

[Ylion]

I haven´t played the second one, but from what I´ve seen it feels like there is too much abstraction for my taste. (I really don´t know how to word it better)
That said I liked the first one despite it being a city builder, not becuase of it. So I´m probably as far from their targeted audience as it gets.
They have a talented team on their hands and I wish them the best, but I guess I´ll sit this one out, at least for now.

[Neonwarrior]

The prologue is a farce. Keep playing and you'll go back to New London and its generator as they expand over the ice-walls. I admit it's a terrible first impression.

[Jack Greedy]

Game is very good, OP Is just wrong.

[catsniffer9000]

Originally posted by Neonwarrior:

The prologue is a farce. Keep playing and you'll go back to New London and its generator as they expand over the ice-walls. I admit it's a terrible first impression.

Totally agree with this guy. The opening mission is...'not great' but once you start the game actual it opens up a bit more. There's lots of stuff I miss from the 1st game. The people. The awe of having 1 Automation, now they just spawn out of nowhere to clear ice wtf?
It's not what I was expecting.

It's bigger and a bit dumber - kind of like the diff between Alien and Aliens.

[JustMonika]

The prologue is certainly not the game leading with its best foot forward.

[siracous]

Frostciv

[Captain Flappy]

Originally posted by Spicy Grasshopper:

Originally posted by EJR:

It's Frostpunk 2, the changes to the core mechanics is the reason why it has the 2 in its name. Besides, the idea of the sequel is that you are managing and developing a sprawling metropolis, not a small settlement like in the original.

Ok you are flat out wrong.
You dont change core mechanics in ANY sequel if they work.
If they didnt work then you change them, because they dont work.

If you change them when they worked, then what happens is exactly what is happening- people lose interest and complain because its got nothing in common with the first.
Its not a true sequel, its an entirely different game skin suiting as a sequel.

I've already refunded and am going back to the first one.
Because that one actually was unique in its mechanical design.

This one I have about a dozen games that utilise the same or similar mechanics, such as districting, clearing land with tiles, etc.

The first offered a unique experience of trying to resource manage (Wood, coal, wellbeing, etc) around a central piece (The generator) that consumed more over time based on various buildings and settings, whilst outlasting an impending apocalypse.

EDIT: Imagine changing Tomb Raider from a third person game to a first person game and saying its ok because its still called Tomb Raider. Youve changed a core mechanic of the design (Third person). OR a racing game from cars to bikes but still calling it the same as the car one.

You have changed core parts that have now altered the experience, you should be making that very clear, not just in the description but in the titling and making it clear its not a direct sequel and does not retain most of the core mechanics.

Funny, because countless games have completely changed genres and gameplay mechanics and been all the better for it.

Resident evil 4 springs to mind, as does RE7. Zelda (most of the titles,) Metroid, Warcraft and the biggest of all... GTA which changed massively from top down in several titles to fully 3d 3rd person (then technically first person if you wanted.)

Also it was very clear they changed this, it has been for 6 months.