I decided to play Inside despite never really meaning to after someone I know said that since its release, there is now "zero reason to play Limbo." I can now pretty conclusively say that that's not the case, not only does one enrich the other but there are elements one does better than the other and vice-versa.
Inside sacrifices some of the atmosphere for colors and particle effects. This works for setpieces, I would say that Inside has more consistently cool ones all throughout the game, whereas Limbo is frontloaded. The moments of walking from point to point, however, as well as the repetitive actions are more openly annoying. Whenever there isn't something happening, there is little atmosphere to speak of. The gray facility isn't a particularly picturesque location.
When I wrote about Limbo a little while back, I assumed that it is mostly supposed to be the same story as Inside, a facility for testing weapons and whatnot, where the player character goes inside to find someone. This seems to hold true. There are changes, sure, but it's like any other series of that type, there are plenty of elements that remain the same and plenty that are different. Think FromSoft's repertoire for an example.
I overall found Inside less challenging, both in terms of gameplay and in terms of challenging my preconceptions. There's no particularly difficult timing nor platforming moments like the spinning sections in Limbo. The game also shows more of the world and the mechanisms of the facility, so there's less for the player to fill in. And that is why the answer to the initial question is a no. The games coexist and there's stuff to get from each, both can provide satisfactory experiences in roughly the same amount of time. At this point, however, I feel like I, as a consumer, am preconditioned to expect these types of experiences every single year, numerous times at that. Limbo was among the early titles that led to this wave, and looking back, I think both it and Inside are falling behind. There are so many experiences per year with just as cool setpieces, but perhaps also, to me at least, a more interesting perspective. Seems like I'm in the minority though. Alas.
Inside sacrifices some of the atmosphere for colors and particle effects. This works for setpieces, I would say that Inside has more consistently cool ones all throughout the game, whereas Limbo is frontloaded. The moments of walking from point to point, however, as well as the repetitive actions are more openly annoying. Whenever there isn't something happening, there is little atmosphere to speak of. The gray facility isn't a particularly picturesque location.
When I wrote about Limbo a little while back, I assumed that it is mostly supposed to be the same story as Inside, a facility for testing weapons and whatnot, where the player character goes inside to find someone. This seems to hold true. There are changes, sure, but it's like any other series of that type, there are plenty of elements that remain the same and plenty that are different. Think FromSoft's repertoire for an example.
I overall found Inside less challenging, both in terms of gameplay and in terms of challenging my preconceptions. There's no particularly difficult timing nor platforming moments like the spinning sections in Limbo. The game also shows more of the world and the mechanisms of the facility, so there's less for the player to fill in. And that is why the answer to the initial question is a no. The games coexist and there's stuff to get from each, both can provide satisfactory experiences in roughly the same amount of time. At this point, however, I feel like I, as a consumer, am preconditioned to expect these types of experiences every single year, numerous times at that. Limbo was among the early titles that led to this wave, and looking back, I think both it and Inside are falling behind. There are so many experiences per year with just as cool setpieces, but perhaps also, to me at least, a more interesting perspective. Seems like I'm in the minority though. Alas.