It's quite sad to see this game being criticised so much because of the differences with the original Frostpunk.

It's totally different, true... so what? I actually think it was a brave move to develop a sequel with completely different mechanics.

It´s simplified. maybe. If you try at higher difficulties, I at least personally don't find it that trivial of a game.

it's short. This one's actually the only real criticism i share. The story mode can be completed in 10 hours, maybe a bit more. Does the game deserve 37% negative reviews for this? i leave the answer to you.

I don't think Frostpunk 2 deserves the current 63% positive rating, it is still an objectively good game, but with a completely different approach from the first game.

This game is centered much more in the politics part than a city planner, laws are way more detailed and your people's relations make the biggest impact in the game, more so than how you designed your city. Infrastructures are now built in 'districts' rather than specific buildings (except the additional buildings you would put atop districts as upgrades) to simplify the development of your city.

Now here are my personal opinions, there are pros and cons to how those gameplay mechanics work. I believe having a simple way of planning your city's development helps reduce complexity to better get a grasp on the story of the game, however this felt too simple for me, it didn't feel rewarding anymore to build my city as the game progresses. This game has also turned into a numbers game where your decisions' effectiveness are determined from your resources going higher or lower, which is not that interesting for me. I wish there are special events that visually shows your city getting affected, not just logos that pop out of the screen. I also feel detached from my community because I don't see people going around unless I zoom reaally close to open that "view district mode" which doesn't have any gameplay purpose other than for aesthetic reason. I also don't have control over automatons like in the first game which is a complete bummer, instead I would only "feel" they are there based from the sudden increase of my workforce. I wish the game also has an organic growth of the infrastructures to compensate for the simplified district-building, like seeing more and more structures being built by your community the longer it is there with different varieties the more funds you give to a certain faction. And speaking about factions, I wish every faction has a clear identity and impact to the game, only the ones with radical views are actually more meaningful, the rest are kind of just there "watching" as the other factions create events or conflicts. Lastly, I wish you can build outposts wherever available, the map is such a nice place for city-building connecting to your main city, but we are restricted from the linear story which makes it less replayable.

Overall a beautiful game with rich story and world-building, amazing music and sound effects, interesting law mechanics, but lacked visual gameplay and has very restricted design mechanics. 7.5/10 for me

I was a huge fan of the first Frostpunk installment. I completed the initial story of Frostpunk 1 in a one night's session and never touched it again. It was nearly a perfect experience: Great story, great atmosphere, great gameplay. Everything fit so well, that I simply felt no urge to dive into Frostpunk 1 again and thus give it a chance to fade.

Having this said, I was pretty hesitant regarding Frostpunk 2. Based on the reviews and ratings it seemed to be ... different.
But it's different in a great way and still feels damn familiar!

The population in Forstpunk 2 feels less personal and less individualistic as a whole. You don't fear for every single of your citizens, since you're responsible for rather a country than a village. Do you remember the occasion in Frostpunk 1, when you pondered whether you should introduce child labor? And maybe you did introduce it, or maybe you didn't. But anyway: The aftermath and consequences might have felt devastating on a very individual level and the game made you feel that your villagers suffer and probably made you question your choice. This was my core experience of Frostpunk 1: Having to make impossible decisions to make the city not fall without spreading too much pain.

In Frostpunk 2 I sided with one of the initial minor factions. And this faction quite pulled me into the atmoshphere. Every proposal seemed well thought and every ambition felt reasonable. Hence I developed this intially minor faction to a majority in the city council.
But just when I got to a certain campaign choice where I wanted my decision to be nice und prudent and lasting, the game just told me: "Hey, you obvisously CAN do this. But this is against every value and idea of your current favored faction. This is so badly against their ideology, that IF you do this, they'll start to hate you, they'll turn away and start rioting. And well: All the other factions already do hate you, because you were against their values all along. So, do you want to go on?!

And this is, why Frostpunk 2 is just as brilliant as Frostpunk 1 was: It (subjectively) also has a great story, great atmosphere and great gamplay BUT it takes the inherent conflicts of political and social interactions and civiliation management to a great new level!

Frostpunk 2 in my point of view is the best successor a game like Frostpunk 1 could have wished for. If you liked Frostpunk 1 give the second installment a chance!