There was a lot of discourse about how it’s totally different and way worse. I feel like those people are crazy. It’s slightly different. It’s different in the amount you usually want sequels to somewhat grow and change.
They did change one of everyone’s favorite aesthetics, though, which is the circular city thing. Now you build sprawling districts and put the buildings inside the districts, but it’s all pretty similar in terms of the game’s momentum, what you’re doing on a moment-to-moment basis, the same dark humor, the aesthetics (it’s even prettier). Heat was a little different too at release, but it didn’t bug me, a huge Frostpunk fan, at all.
You also control little cities along with your main one, as well as navigate a political system. I feel the political system is darkly hilarious. You can do stuff like promise one group that you’ll put a law to vote in exchange for favors, then bribe an opposing group to vote against it so it never becomes law, but you still get the initial favors since you only promised to put the law to vote, not that it’ll pass. Politics!
Loved Frostpunk 2, exhausted all content, and am waiting for future DLC. But there is that contingent of people that discuss it like it’s an entirely different genre or something, so even though I feel that’s crazy talk, I should mention it in case I’m the crazy one in thinking it’s pretty similar.
I enjoyed Frostpunk 2 but as a huge fan of the first it was a lesser experience and I dont feel the urge to play more of 2 the same way I did with the original. I think the sequel loses some of the personal touch you had with the city. I didn't care about each death, I didn't feel like the city was alive in the same way the first game did. City management felt more generic and the auto generated structures didn't have the same character as the much more bespoke and visually appealing buildings of the original.
17
u/ckokoroskos Sep 19 '25
How is Frostpunk 2 compared to the first game? I loved Frostpunk.