Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by Nyloth
Let me say these are different games that will bring you a completely different experience. This is one of the reasons why I don't understand why people compare them here. It's the same with Pathfinder, which is a very difficult game. I will not play Solasta, I have never been interested in the gameplay in such games, I play similar isometric RPGs for story, so I will play Pathfinder, although I do not like its complex gameplay. BG3 is my favorite, because it combines a story and a simplified (convenient for me) gameplay.

As a result, each game will give you a different experience.

I'm confused. Why not try Solasta? It has story, character banter, you create 4 characters, all your own. You live through the story, it's a fun game.

I mean, I still think BG3 is better by far, as I've never replayed a game so much, but Solasta is really fun too. I like Solasta more than Pathfinder so far. Don't get me wrong, I like both, but I'd put BG3, Solasta, Pathfinder in that order, though Pathfinder is a very close contender with Solasta.

I've played Solasta. I enjoy Solasta for what it is.

But when all is said and done, what Solasta is, is a fairly straightforward implementation of certain portion of the 5.0 ruleset. The 5.0 tactics were unquestionably well implemented, to the extent they were.

As for characterization, story, non-combat skill and spell implementation, and lore, Solasta is basic - at best. Reminds me of Temple of Elemental Evil at release, but with 5.0 tactics instead of 3.x.

I'll take Pathfinder over that any day of the week, and I still expect BG3 to far outclass Solasta by the time it is finished.