Gaming writer Alfred Billington gives his views on what the new Frostpunk sequel does well and where it falls down
As a sequel, Frostpunk 2 will inevitably be judged through the prism of its wildly successful predecessor. In this, I believe, lies the main struggle with this game. Frostpunk 2 in a vacuum, is a good game, even an excellent one, but if viewed with the original in mind, it is clear that something has gone wrong.
Frostpunk 2 is an anomaly of a modern video game sequel, it unusually goes to great lengths to differentiate itself from its predecessor. Its gameplay specialises in a different area than the original, one that is broader in perspective, but without as much internal depth. The difference, I believe, can be summarised as such: in Frostpunk you played a mayor of a single city, in Frostpunk 2 you play a prime minister of multiple cities making up one conglomerate entity. Think back on the original SimCity map, of multiple small cities on one large map; Frostpunk 2 follows this same formula letting you control one main city with multiple “colonies” surrounding it.
The cities of Frostpunk 2 feel a lot less personal than the first
Within these cities lies Frostpunk 2’s main gameplay loop: the placing and expanding of districts, a revelation which I’m sure has already got many to roll their eyes. Indeed, in terms of city-building games, most agree, and lament, that we are living through the age of the ‘district-builder’; where instead of the placement and management of individual buildings you manage non-descript, districts of many buildings, whether that be a housing district, industrial district, excavation or so on. And, certainly, while I agree with the notion that the cities of Frostpunk 2 feel a lot less personal than the first, owing to a lack of direct control you have in building them, I believe this was still a necessary jump to make for 11 Bit Studios. Frostpunk 2’s map is far larger than in the first, with far more systems at play. The micro-management of these cities, therefore, needed to be streamlined to make the game playable, and not bogged down in minutia. In this respect, I believe the game has succeeded. It is still immensely satisfying to see your cities change and develop. Ensuring productivity in your cities is rewarding much in the same way that games like Factorio or Cities Skylines have capitalised on before. This is a large part of your experience with the game, therefore, I believe 11 Bit Studios’ success here justifies some measure of playtime with it.
Another area that Frostpunk 2 develops on is the political system. In the original, politics was restricted to a mood bar reflecting the availability of food, fuel and resources. In contrast, there is an entire election system in the sequel, made up of different political parties representing a certain percentage of the city respectively. All these political parties have different opinions on policy and technology you will have to manage and appease. However, despite the initial depth this presents, it appears to me that this system is only a way to make the game more artificially difficult, as, if you fall out with a faction you can just give them some heatstamps (an equivalent of tax money) to suddenly be back in their favour again. This system turns out just to be an annoying side-activity, rather than something that directly controls and affects your actions in a Suzerian-like fashion.
You feel like more an overseer making decisions disconnected from what’s going on the ground
Like Frostpunk, in its sequel, you will have to make tough moral decisions in the name of survival (whether to send kids to coal mines, put sawdust in the soup and so on), but from a more detached point of view, you feel like more of an overseer, making decisions disconnected from what’s going on the ground. Moreover, there appears to be a less defined feedback loop from your actions than the original. Whereas in the first game you would see the influence of your actions directly in the gameplay. For example, if you were to be a dictator-like ruler (though I’m sure I speak only for a select few) and send your citizen’s children to the mines, you would physically see them walk to, and work in the factories every day. In the new game, there is no defined work day amongst your citizens and cities. Consequently, your actions appear stagnant and non-consequential.
In general, there is a loss of sentimentality between yourself and your city’s citizens, you don’t care, and indeed don’t need to care, if a few hundred of your people die from cold here and there. This is my main criticism with the game. Overall, you just feel less involved in the city than in the first. Whilst, in the first, you could click on a random citizen and see his job, his home, employment, even his mood, now these self-same citizens just appear as procedurally generated dots on a screen — perpetually bobbing around in the city as though lost at sea.
All in all, I have to say I commend 11 Bit Studios for doing something that very few studios do, which is to actually expand in the sequel and produce something that can stand on its own. One needs to only look back on the Horizon series or Assassin’s Creed games to see that the idea of a sequel that dares to be different to its predecessor is something rare in the gaming industry. With this in mind, I almost certainly believe that if I had not played the original then I would give this game a higher score, but, if I am to be honest and transparent, it is my own bias and love for the original that pulls my rating down. Frostpunk 2, I believe, in expanding, and attempting at least, to elevate itself from the original has lost what drew so many in. In finding a new identity, Frostpunk 2 has lost the original’s flair.
Final Score 6/10
Read more gaming retrospectives here:
Undertale: World Pacifism At Christmas
Comments