The 2 engine aircraft will also usually have a lower split in V1 and Vr compared to the 3 or 4 engine case
Tontouta airport Noumea is a good example. Obstacles called hills are relatively close to the departure end of Runway 11. Despite a long runway 10,600 feet, the takeoff weight was limited due terrain.
Our performance engineers worked out we could take off from Runway 29 in the 737-200 at max structural and a 10 knot tailwind, Flaps One with a VR around 160 knots. V1 was 23 knots less. Basically the low V1 permitted plenty of room for an abort allowing for the increased ground speed because of the 10 knots TW. The long runway and the 23 knots spread between V1 and VR gave us more than enough to spare accelerating through that 23 knots on one engine. It also gave the pilot lots of time to play with the rudder to maintain the centreline in the GO case albeit slow acceleration on one engine.
We would maintain the localiser reciprocal track during climb out to avoid straying towards a 758 ft high hill situated about half a mile to one side of the localiser track. Personally, in terms of decision making at a critical time during takeoff, I would prefer to have a substantial split between V1 and VR rather than V1=VR or similar tight difference. Any IRE that scrubs a pilot during simulator training having failed an engine two or three knots below V1 and the pilot elects to continue, needs to study the history of accidents caused by a high speed reject close to V1. They do not always go to plan and the result has the potential to be deadly; especially where the over-run area is minimal as in ending in water. Some Pacific atolls for example.