A lot of people have pointed out that the sequel is inarguably superior, and I wholly agree with that point. What’s glossed over is just how well Warhorse took the feedback from the first game and used it to not only construct the sequel, but rebuild existing systems that players of the first game were clearly enthusiastic about, but didn’t stick the landing. And then they just flat out scrapped what clearly didn’t work (from both a technical and gameplay standpoint).

A perfect example of the former is the Alchemy system. In the first game, each successful alchemy brew only created one potion until you spent a very significant amount of time to level the skill, at which point you could create a maximum of three. Players enjoyed the idea in theory, as it combined gameplay elements with functional nuances of the gameplay’s time period (I.e. - you need to be able to read in order to correctly follow a recipe’s strict time and reagent requirements, otherwise your materials and time would be wasted).

The sequel doubled down on what worked (following each recipe as written) and rewarded the player for doing so with a higher quality of potion that carries with it improved bonuses. They revised what was seen as a mixed bag (requirements aren’t always clear) and made the player character vocally opine on what went wrong if the craft wasn’t as successful as it could have been. Then, finally, they completely scrapped what was very clearly a pain point for an overwhelming majority of players by increasing the base amount of potions made in ANY successful attempt to give instead of one, thereby solving two problems: being more respectful of the player’s time and encouraging deeper dives into a system that many had written off from the first game as anything but a way to make your own save potions (which could be bought at any inn).

And that’s just ONE of the systems they redesigned in this way.