Frostpunk 2 Spiel

by Rian

For a game set in the ice age, Frostpunk 2 surely is released at a weird time. I would imagine September isn’t particularly hot or cold in either hemisphere. Last installment for the franchise was released during the pandemic, and even for a DLC, the last scenario didn’t sit well with the world it has established. The ice age was coming to an end, and we were told New London fell victim to the problems of old. In Frostpunk 2, we are back in New London, but as the steward of metropolis, not a city.

The original Frostpunk was a phenomenal survival colony sim, where the game mechanic encapsulated the image of surviving through an ice age with the limitations of technology. Managing heat became central part of the game unlike others, and heat radius system meant constructing a city like a donut had actual gameplay value, surrounding the central building, the generator —generating heat, steam, and possibly electricity. Overall, the game mechanic felt as though it enabled circular city design for both the gameplay and the lore.

In Frostpunk 2, neither heat management nor circular city reappears. In fact, there can’t be heat management, because the game simply doesn’t have heat radius system. In its place, we have hexagonal grid and districts. Districts can’t be specialized beyond its category, just the budget and few other abilities. If there were any, the only decision making in district building would be the two buildings slots; though two slots don’t make a bold statement.

The lack of proper “heat” system makes me even wonder why this game is called Frostpunk at all. There is city-wide demand for heat, and only by meeting the demand for it, the citizens of New London and the surrounding colonies would survive the freezing temperature. But the game mechanic is equivalent to any other colony sim’s energy system, and there is little to no management, upgrades, or tech trees for the generator. More fuel always produces more heat, no questions asked.

As a survival colony sim, Frostpunk 2 is not demanding of hard decisions. All decisions come back with some benefits, and these benefits often throws off the balance. In fact, in my playthroughs, it was always harder to be partisan in the council than to take bipartisan approach. Same was true with other resources in game. There is no hard balancing act: if you lose some people to the cold, you get some more next year, if you lose some income, you get more through increased taxes or performances. The city no longer feels like it’s hanging on by a thread, and there is no desperation of clinging on to the last of human civilization to continue on.

Conclusion: Why is this Frostpunk sequel?

All in all, as a stand alone title, I was satisfied with what Frostpunk 2 had to offer. There are stories to tell in each factions. And each faction has its own reasons for the world view they push for. There are replay values. But why is this a Frostpunk sequel? As a sequel, it has lost touch with the appeal of the original: the pinnacle of steampunk civilization, the struggle for survival, the will of the people to continue human civilization, and —if you were the fan of Frostpunk’s cynical ending system— the heart wrenching moments to keep the humanity even in the direst of moments. What makes Frostpunk 2 a sequel to the original? I’d like to believe the DLCs will answer the questions.