Whereas the first game had a strong foundation, it struggled to reach its full potential thanks to the vast amounts of jank and some questionable design choices especially regarding randomness. While I would still consider it to be a good game, I hesitate to say it was a game I actually enjoyed. Its in the same vein as something like Pathologic 2 where there's a large gulf between the game's value as an experience and as a piece of entertainment.
While it has lost some of what made the first game a very unique experience, I think the improvements Termina made to the rest is enough to compensate overall and make this game the better of the two. The scope is far broader, the gameplay cleaner (more reliant on resource management than on luck), and the game's design (especially when it comes to saving and navigation) does a much better job at preventing abuse and cheese strategies from the players. While the first game certainly got a lot out of how janky it was, often using it to emphasize the dark and oppressive nature of the dungeon, it did lead to a lot of other issues that brought the game down.
Rather than simply being "The same game, but better", Termina feels much more like an evolution of the first game rather than a pure improvement. While the first game had its strengths, I don't think they had the staying power to justify a sequel that didn't make substantial changes. It was very much the kind of thing you'll be glad you played but will never want to play again. So while Termina's polish might have dampened parts of the experience, it also gave the game a much stronger and more resilient foundation. I never got tired of playing Termina in the same way I got sick of the first game. It chops off the roughest 20% of the first game so that the remaining 80% has a chance to shine with the game's changes to the structure and focus. And while I still find myself mourning much of what was lost, I find it hard to disagree that this was the best approach. While there are still plenty of small improvements that can be made (I do think the game was a bit too easy), the core Fear and Hunger experience is still intact and has been given a foundation where it has a much better opportunity to grow and improve.
While it has lost some of what made the first game a very unique experience, I think the improvements Termina made to the rest is enough to compensate overall and make this game the better of the two. The scope is far broader, the gameplay cleaner (more reliant on resource management than on luck), and the game's design (especially when it comes to saving and navigation) does a much better job at preventing abuse and cheese strategies from the players. While the first game certainly got a lot out of how janky it was, often using it to emphasize the dark and oppressive nature of the dungeon, it did lead to a lot of other issues that brought the game down.
Rather than simply being "The same game, but better", Termina feels much more like an evolution of the first game rather than a pure improvement. While the first game had its strengths, I don't think they had the staying power to justify a sequel that didn't make substantial changes. It was very much the kind of thing you'll be glad you played but will never want to play again. So while Termina's polish might have dampened parts of the experience, it also gave the game a much stronger and more resilient foundation. I never got tired of playing Termina in the same way I got sick of the first game. It chops off the roughest 20% of the first game so that the remaining 80% has a chance to shine with the game's changes to the structure and focus. And while I still find myself mourning much of what was lost, I find it hard to disagree that this was the best approach. While there are still plenty of small improvements that can be made (I do think the game was a bit too easy), the core Fear and Hunger experience is still intact and has been given a foundation where it has a much better opportunity to grow and improve.