Very good review on survival city builders. I, too, also always thought that new city builders lacked something. Turns out it all was people inside your city, not outside threats and the atmosphere of hopelessness.
I feel like there are 3 fundamental mistakes other games fail at when trying to catch the feel of Frostpunk 1. In most city builders an upgrade is always an upgrade. This is beaten into the brain of every player with familiarity in the genre but if you treat the book of laws that way in Frostpunk your in for a rude awakening. Going to far in the book of laws can cause all sorts of detriments to your society. Propaganda driving people to suicide, folks forcing others to repent for perceived heresy. The best choice is often going as far as you need to and then stopping, which adds a feeling of responsibility to the book of laws that other games lack. You didn't pass those terrible late game laws because it was necessary, you passed them because _you_ weren't good enough to survive without them. To quote a comment I saw on a Frostpunk lets play "Tyranny is a skill issue". 2. In most of these games the people don't feel like people . In most city builders your people don't have opinions on what you do or there opinions are so easy and consequence free to manage that there irrelevant. Happiness is a static modifier and increasing it is a simple matter of building the right building. Whereas in Frostpunk a lot of the ways to boost hope and lower discontent have a cost to them, whether it be through causing drunken outbursts, spreading venereal diseases or simply lowering the efficiency of workplaces. Making people happy costs you something and it may cost you badly in the long run if you aren't prepared for it. 3. Peoples deaths are mostly out of your control. For example in New cycle when a fire breaks out (and they will as you have no way of stopping them) the game rolls a dice, its the game, not you, who ultimately decides whether Someone dies. this along with the previous issue Gamefies the people in you city and makes them feel like just another resource you sometimes lose, rather then people your trying to keep alive which is the entire point of a _survival_ city builder. In Frostpunk, generally it will injure or if its particularly bad, grievously injure people and its up to you and the healthcare you've prepared (or not prepared) that decides if they live. And when it does have events that guarantee someone dies, its usually due to circumstances you could and should have prevented (Deadly work conditions), or a consequence of the severe laws you passed (Propaganda/New Faith/Militia/Strikebusting etc.). In Frostpunk if someone dies it is absolutely YOUR fault they died.
Agree 100%. I think it all comes back down to the other games being city builders first and foremost - whereas Frostpunk is a society simulator. 'Cos of that it takes you to those insane places society will go to when pushed to the brink. I never felt I was pushed to the edge in the other games - Frostpunk throws you off into the abyss! Funny you should mention New Cycle. That was actually the reason behind making this whole video. I played it and had the same thoughts you had, and left a bit disappointed - not in the game, but in the fact that nothing else can capture the same feeling as Frostpunk.
From what I read, with the sequel the developers didn't want to simply go 'bigger storm'; for them, Frostpunk is a society management game. So they leaned on that, the 'punk' aspect that steampunk series tend to miss: the social element... And conflicts. Frostpunk 2 is more about the ambition of people, now that they've managed to survive. Factions, ideologies, people demanding to be heard... Human nature is the greatest danger in the new game.
That's what always makes Frostpunk stand out - and why no one else has captured that same magic. The people come first, not the city. I've no doubt the devs have seen what an impact that's had, and hopefully lean in even further for the sequel.
@@GINXDocs From what I've seen in the beta playthroughs on TH-cam, they do. Faction management now dictates how you develop, as the price of breaking promises is steep
Steward / Stewardship comes from a title to call someone who supervising the organization of properties, Like The Littlefinger in GoT. CK players might familiar with the title
The survival city builders features are Banished, Planetbase, Surviving Mars, Surviving the Aftermath, Surviving the Abyss, Endzone: A World Apart, New Cycle, Ixion - and then Frostpunk 1 & 2, as well as This War of Mine.
![โรงเรียนห้ามรัก โดนจับได้ตาย...!! [เอิร์นไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4u02Sbr556Q/mqdefault.jpg)
Very good review on survival city builders. I, too, also always thought that new city builders lacked something. Turns out it all was people inside your city, not outside threats and the atmosphere of hopelessness.
I feel like there are 3 fundamental mistakes other games fail at when trying to catch the feel of Frostpunk
1. In most city builders an upgrade is always an upgrade. This is beaten into the brain of every player with familiarity in the genre but if you treat the book of laws that way in Frostpunk your in for a rude awakening. Going to far in the book of laws can cause all sorts of detriments to your society. Propaganda driving people to suicide, folks forcing others to repent for perceived heresy.
The best choice is often going as far as you need to and then stopping, which adds a feeling of responsibility to the book of laws that other games lack. You didn't pass those terrible late game laws because it was necessary, you passed them because _you_ weren't good enough to survive without them. To quote a comment I saw on a Frostpunk lets play "Tyranny is a skill issue".
2. In most of these games the people don't feel like people . In most city builders your people don't have opinions on what you do or there opinions are so easy and consequence free to manage that there irrelevant. Happiness is a static modifier and increasing it is a simple matter of building the right building. Whereas in Frostpunk a lot of the ways to boost hope and lower discontent have a cost to them, whether it be through causing drunken outbursts, spreading venereal diseases or simply lowering the efficiency of workplaces. Making people happy costs you something and it may cost you badly in the long run if you aren't prepared for it.
3. Peoples deaths are mostly out of your control. For example in New cycle when a fire breaks out (and they will as you have no way of stopping them) the game rolls a dice, its the game, not you, who ultimately decides whether Someone dies. this along with the previous issue Gamefies the people in you city and makes them feel like just another resource you sometimes lose, rather then people your trying to keep alive which is the entire point of a _survival_ city builder.
In Frostpunk, generally it will injure or if its particularly bad, grievously injure people and its up to you and the healthcare you've prepared (or not prepared) that decides if they live. And when it does have events that guarantee someone dies, its usually due to circumstances you could and should have prevented (Deadly work conditions), or a consequence of the severe laws you passed (Propaganda/New Faith/Militia/Strikebusting etc.). In Frostpunk if someone dies it is absolutely YOUR fault they died.
Agree 100%. I think it all comes back down to the other games being city builders first and foremost - whereas Frostpunk is a society simulator. 'Cos of that it takes you to those insane places society will go to when pushed to the brink. I never felt I was pushed to the edge in the other games - Frostpunk throws you off into the abyss!
Funny you should mention New Cycle. That was actually the reason behind making this whole video. I played it and had the same thoughts you had, and left a bit disappointed - not in the game, but in the fact that nothing else can capture the same feeling as Frostpunk.
@GINXDocs Yeah guess we'll just have to wait for frostpunk 2 and cross our fingers 11bit knocks it out of the park once again.
STEWARD!!! The new game getting me worked up and loving it.
From what I read, with the sequel the developers didn't want to simply go 'bigger storm'; for them, Frostpunk is a society management game.
So they leaned on that, the 'punk' aspect that steampunk series tend to miss: the social element... And conflicts.
Frostpunk 2 is more about the ambition of people, now that they've managed to survive.
Factions, ideologies, people demanding to be heard... Human nature is the greatest danger in the new game.
That's what always makes Frostpunk stand out - and why no one else has captured that same magic. The people come first, not the city. I've no doubt the devs have seen what an impact that's had, and hopefully lean in even further for the sequel.
@@GINXDocs From what I've seen in the beta playthroughs on TH-cam, they do. Faction management now dictates how you develop, as the price of breaking promises is steep
Steward / Stewardship comes from a title to call someone who supervising the organization of properties, Like The Littlefinger in GoT. CK players might familiar with the title
What are the name of the games that appear in the video?
The survival city builders features are Banished, Planetbase, Surviving Mars, Surviving the Aftermath, Surviving the Abyss, Endzone: A World Apart, New Cycle, Ixion - and then Frostpunk 1 & 2, as well as This War of Mine.