I have seen and heard many people talking about their opinions regarding the latest Red Barrels game, Outlast II, and how it compared to the first one. Majority of the opinions state that they believe the first Outlast to be better than the second, and I would like to tell you why this is wrong.
First off, they are not the same game at all! Having different areas, scenery, story, setting, location, and even style puts these two games in an "indoors vs outdoors" horror comparison. This means that the way the two games are played differ in multiple aspects.
Also, the only two things that make Outlast and Outlast II relatable to each other is the development studio and that majority of the game, your goal is to live long enough to LAST until you are OUT of danger.
Let's Talk Outlast I
In this first game, you are a journalist that breaks into an asylum to uncover the truth of what is going on here, likely expecting to find doctors using experimental methods to cure their patients at worst and finding yourself in the midst of a science-gone-wrong outbreak!
Using the science-based story, enclosed area, and overall chaos, they were able to make the game mostly linear with only one or two paths while letting you be able to see, or audibly depict, where your enemies were and how to avoid them.
Being inside a majority of the game made it have a scare that left you feeling trapped and that your only hope is to narrowly escape through timing and light parkour.
Let's Talk Outlast II
Now you are a victim of a plane crash, along with your wife, and find yourself in a village you know only horrifying rumors about. When you wake up, you find that your wife is missing and set out to find her in order to get you both to safety.
Using the religious based story, open areas, and misdirections, they were able to make the game feel more like a multi-option stealth game that truly has only one correct path. With the setting you are in, enemies are hard to see and hear while the direction you need to go is not always clear.
Being outside majority of the game left you with a scare that made you feel lost and confused, with your only hope to be avoiding enemies general direction and a bit of luck.
They even had parts that gave the enclosed area scares such as the school flashbacks and mine caves, which were my favorite parts to be honest.
Outlast I vs Outlast II Conclusion
Comparing the two based on the same aspects is not the way to go about it, but rather compare them based on two separate horror games because that is exactly what they are. So, on that note, I think they are both great games that are equally as good.
I loved Outlast for the tight squeezes and the constant fear of turning the corner to find new horror. The intensity of being in a locker while the patients or brute is looking for you, sometimes wondering if you even got in there without them noticing, gave me chills.
I loved Outlast II for the open options that would often lead to demise, making you worry about all directions and who may be lurking around. Without the grunting, heavy breathing, talking to themselves, or other ways that the enemies were loud in the first one, the quiet enemies made it so much worse! At least they were kind enough to implement the camera mic.
Both games have excellent qualities and were scary enough to keep the horror aspect on future playthroughs of the game. But the question people are asking is "Which is better?" That would be mostly user choice, but being a fan of the horror genre as a whole and especially enjoying the various defenseless games, I think they are equally as good for their own aspects.
Bringing this view to light, what do you think? Which is better, if they are not tied?
