Hi! So, I'm not really sure what the general public's opinion is about either one of these games, so apologies in advance if nothing I say is new or if anything I say is already an overtalked point amongst community members.

I played Innocence just before the holidays and really, really loved it. I loved the characters, the setting (France! accents!), the creepy religious overtones, the antagonist as a sibling pair (unique!), and most of all the story. The progression and the way the narrative unfolded was really well done - finally being able to play as Hugo and then controlling the rats...my jaw dropped! It was done really, really well, and I admired so many aspects of the game's design choices, narrative structure, and overall themes that I could easily overlook some of the clunkier gameplay aspects. That said, while I was impressed with the first, I was just as intrigued to play the second.

I just finished beating Requiem and had to hop on to Reddit to talk to someone about it because...I was really disappointed with the sequel! I don't think it's a "bad game" - it made some improvements from the first in a technical aspect (a bit tighter gameplay, easier maneuverability, streamlined inventory) and it is visually breathtaking - but the narrative and characterizations were such a dud for me. Rats felt like an afterthought to this story that there were moments I forgot that they were even there. Learning to control hordes of rats was a high point for me (loved the visual here, how it was to move around and go up and down different heights) and then .... it didn't really mean anything. It felt so underdeveloped? I expected that level of control to unfold in deeper ways, like a boss battle or something that was crucial to driving the plot, but it was like an optional tool that was like "yeah, you can use this if you want". I never needed to use it, and that kind of power felt minimized or peripheral to everything else available to me. The story was ridiculous - the first one is fantastical and has its "over the top" moments, but it felt measured and composed, and was spoonfed in ways I thought were provoking. Requiem's pacing felt like it exploded that out of proportion: adrenaline spike after adrenaline spike and its events too incredulous to be "believable". It was almost "too epic" that after entering Marseille I was well past the point of thinking "I want to get off this ride now". The Midsommar-esque island cult thing was very cliche, and I didn't understand how Requiem's writers were trying to make it their own during this section of the game/story. Arnaud and Sophia weren't as likeable/interesting as Mellie/Arthur/Rodric (a bandit of kids vs "Tank" and "Sleuth"), and the formulaic patterning of "Arnaud is your gimmick this chapter/now Sophia is for this one" made me think so much of how cookie-cuttered the gameplay's presentation is. And why did they remove any semblance of a French accent? All that charm and unique identity flattened for standard British voice acting was so jarring coming off the first game, it felt like cutting corners. I liked that Amicia whacks Hugo and ends up losing her entire family at the end (bc the writers dared to do it) but the road to getting there was clunky and the payoff was just not there...

I should clarify that I didn't find Requiem to be completely terrible - all in all I can appreciate that it's a huge labor, and technically speaking its a marvel to look at compared with other games, but whereas it's very much a narrative-driven experience than it is a "game", it just felt like a really strange advancement from the first on this quality. For me, it's one of the more shocking turns in quality that I've experienced from a story's sequel. My impression is that Requiem felt like a completely different group of people worked on the skeleton of the first game.

What are people's thoughts on this?