Larian Studios
A recent Cohh Carnage stream introduced me to Solasta:
www.solasta-game.comhttps://www.solasta-game.com
It is a turn based RPG using 5e rules, though the game is not set in Faerun.
I'd say that the combat implementation is more advanced than BG3 at this point, as they have implemented features that players have been complaining about (the lack thereof) in BG3.
For example, in Solasta you can delay your actions and choose when to use reactions, it is pretty well done.
I think it deserves a look, as it can help you with future implementation.
I had a look at some of the lets plays, another great thing is in conversations you can pick which character to answer and roll social skills with.

Its on my wishlist for now.
We're gonna have a lot of these posts I guess. Super.
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
I had a look at some of the lets plays, another great thing is in conversations you can pick which character to answer and roll social skills with.

Its on my wishlist for now.

Same here.
You can also roll stats, get cover (half, full), see attack rolls and modifiers in combat.
It might be the answer for some features Larian is not certain about implementing. Just check Solasta and see if it works.
It's a matter of individual taste. Do you also post in Solasta's Dev forum and ask them to make their game look more like BG3 because Solasta is ugly?
It's like telling an artist "Why don't you make your music more like THAT guy? I like his better than yours!"
First of all that's very impolite and entitled. And second, you always have the choice to play what you like.
At this stage of proceedings, I imagine that Larian have a pretty good idea of the fundamental mechanics behind their game. Pointing to another game saying that you like it is very unlikely to make them decide to throw out most of the development work to date and try to replicate a different one.

I like GURPS better than D&D. Hey, Larian, can you change the game for me please?
Originally Posted by Syrek
It's a matter of individual taste. Do you also post in Solasta's Dev forum and ask them to make their game look more like BG3 because Solasta is ugly?
It's like telling an artist "Why don't you make your music more like THAT guy? I like his better than yours!"
First of all that's very impolite and entitled. And second, you always have the choice to play what you like.

Solasta is definitely ugly and you can see the small budget in the graphics and voice acting.
Still, implementation of 5e mechanics is closer to the source than BG3, including features that players are asking through feedback.
Looking another games for a game dev is research, there is nothing "impolite" about the suggestion.
Originally Posted by Syrek
It's a matter of individual taste. Do you also post in Solasta's Dev forum and ask them to make their game look more like BG3 because Solasta is ugly?
It's like telling an artist "Why don't you make your music more like THAT guy? I like his better than yours!"
First of all that's very impolite and entitled. And second, you always have the choice to play what you like.


You should look into it yourself. They have a specific post in the Solasta's forums about this very thing. They think BG3 is gorgeous, and give ways to give good feedback. So they kinda of encourage it.

It isn't rude nor entitled in the least bit. Entitled, that word gets A LOT of misuse and overuse these days.

Just because someone has a different opinion than yours doesn't make them rude or entitled. It could have been worded better, but both games could stand to learn something from one another. We all make posts in haste, and could stand to stop and read over them most times. All of us.

The perfect dnd game would be the love child of these two games.
Originally Posted by Danielbda

Solasta is definitely ugly and you can see the small budget in the graphics and voice acting.
Still, implementation of 5e mechanics is closer to the source than BG3, including features that players are asking through feedback.
Looking another games for a game dev is research, there is nothing "impolite" about the suggestion.

While your last sentence is true, there's a point in development where you have to stop looking left and right and just go forward. Usually that point is right after the concept stage when only basic engine programming has been done.
There's sunk cost, deadlines and revenue to bring in, and there are also players snapping at your heels to finish up the rest of this massive undertaking.
You can of course make tweaks, turn certain things up and others down in a measured way and I'm quite sure they will do that.
But suggesting to majorly revamp a majority of the combat system, this far in development, because you like a different game better is preposterous and I can't believe this doesn't occur to you.

I know, a lot of alleged "Betas" of other games (which are actually glorified marketing demos) have convinced you that you can still have major input on a games' design when it's already far enough along that you can play it without crashing every 2 minutes and every model has textures and animations. But that's not how development works in real life.
However, Solasta really looks nice (combat, talk-options, etc).
Alone the automatic jumping <3
The graphics are of course sub-par
For a game made with only 17 developers, I think it is an AWESOME product. It had a small budget, does some things very very right and on the whole is a very good game.

That said, It does not hold my interest like BG3 does. The game suffers from the lack of budget and developer pool. BG3 is much prettier, better graphics all around. Better Voice acting. Character creation/ customization is better, etc. The story also grabs me more with BG3 than It has so far with Solasta. That is not to say I regret buying it or will not play it more.

I view the two games as two separate dishes. Solasta is like home made ground beef tacos, it does the job, is tasty and filling.
BG3 is like Tacos from Old Town In San Diego that I used to love so much (when I lived there), fresh corn tortillas, wonderful fillings, fresh tasty guacamole and salsa - totally awesome and should be a food group unto themselves.

The two are different and similar. I need them both in my life.

Heck the multiplayer game should have a form of dice roll like SWTOR for who gets to talk in a conversation. There are things to learn from in a lot of games.

That said a message to Larian . . . AFTER this is done . . . SPELLJAMMER or PLANESCAPE.

Just saying. smile

They know, Sven recommended it on his twitter lol.
I actually bought it, the UI/Controls/Graphics/Voice Acting/Script/Story are all pretty bad (excusable though as the reason people like it is the combat)

It felt more like a linear dungeon crawl than a big world you explore.

Open world map travel reminds me of the old gold box games from the 80s/90s where you see a map, select where you want to go, and possibly run into random encounters which brings you into combat. Random events like hunting and finding food happen, reminds me of organ trail in some regards. Overall those interfaces feel dated to me now.

As far as combat, it stayed very true to 5e, and yet, it felt lifeless to me. Feedback/information mechanism are sparse in combat, so knowing if I had advantage via flank/back attack was uncertain. I could look in the combat log but it didn't have the dice roll formulas in there to explain the hit/miss/dmg roll.

Camera controls are REALLY bad. I thought I had issues here, but I was dying on the inside trying to look around and make sure I clicked on the enemy that was hovering over my head and not a movement tile behind it that would cause an attack of opportunity.

A lot of people were really enthused by having d20s rolling over all the characters throughout combat, they even have an option to customize your d20s in game, but that is ancillary and just cosmetic to me so it has zero allure.

It does showcase how BG3 allows for a lot more actions per a turn versus the 5e rules.

There are arguments for and against pure 5e rules on a computer based game though. Because you could only do 1 or 2 things per a turn it was very bland (to me) but for others they feel this allows for a more chess like play where there is opportunity to counter each move the enemy makes and you can't snowball them with your own actions.

There is still the ability to push enemies off ledges and do drastic damage, there is still the ability to constantly run behind your target to maximize advantage rolls, there are some battles that permit environmental effects (you can push a block down on targets or probably other traps later on).

It really is subjective and while I kind am disappointed after purchasing it because I thought I would be introduced to a more hardcore and clean combat system, it just felt lifeless and boring in effect. Made me really appreciate BG3.

I refuse to return Solasta though, I want to go back and play it more and give it a second chance. Maybe I "just don't get it" yet.
I admit that I haven't played very far into Solasta yet, I'd rather play through BG3 for a 4th time and that's what I'm doing, and I feel that's saying something
These games have a common core audience but each target specific parts of that audience, with BG3 aiming for broader mass appeal by trying their best to make it a fun and appealing video game experience.

While I haven't given Solasta a real chance yet, I've played through Pathfinder: Kingmaker several times.
I love that game and it's an amazing tabletop simulator, but at the same time it's not a very good video game. Because let's be honest, a lot of the time it feels like you're playing an excel spreadsheet.
Larian knows how to make fun and enticing video games, but their games are probably never going to be tabletop simulators.
As someone who likes both Solasta and BG 3 to varying degrees:

I really think BG 3 could take a few pointers from Solasta, like the autojump during traveling and a more detailed character background generation (personality tags, influence of background on starting equipment, etc.) and of course the closer implementation of 5e rules. On the other hand Solasta could learn a lot from BG 3, like better dialog and story writing, good UI design and open exploration.

I genuinely think the combat in Solasta is better and more fun than in BG 3, since it doesn't feel as reliant on gimmicks (they exist in Solasta as well, but are used in moderation generally).
Originally Posted by Kendaric
As someone who likes both Solasta and BG 3 to varying degrees:

I really think BG 3 could take a few pointers from Solasta, like the autojump during traveling and a more detailed character background generation (personality tags, influence of background on starting equipment, etc.) and of course the closer implementation of 5e rules. On the other hand Solasta could learn a lot from BG 3, like better dialog and story writing, good UI design and open exploration.

I genuinely think the combat in Solasta is better and more fun than in BG 3, since it doesn't feel as reliant on gimmicks (they exist in Solasta as well, but are used in moderation generally).

Yeah, the whole point is that this tiny developer with almost non existent budget was able to make an almost literal implementation of the tabletop, and the most common feedback for BG3 regards things that are not implemented as in the book. That's what the devs should look.
Originally Posted by Sadurian
At this stage of proceedings, I imagine that Larian have a pretty good idea of the fundamental mechanics behind their game. Pointing to another game saying that you like it is very unlikely to make them decide to throw out most of the development work to date and try to replicate a different one.

I like GURPS better than D&D. Hey, Larian, can you change the game for me please?


Personally I feel the mechanics are the things they could change up the most being more convenient to do so. That said, I can't say how much they are locked into any feature.

I feel it is nice that there is this somewhat parallel game we are able to play as well, them to. Some UI things may be worth looking at, tutorial, dice rolls etc. It is a reference for them to see if there is something more elegant there that they may want to look at for themselves. The gamers goal is for both games to be excellent.
Originally Posted by Kendaric
As someone who likes both Solasta and BG 3 to varying degrees:

I really think BG 3 could take a few pointers from Solasta, like the autojump during traveling and a more detailed character background generation (personality tags, influence of background on starting equipment, etc.) and of course the closer implementation of 5e rules. On the other hand Solasta could learn a lot from BG 3, like better dialog and story writing, good UI design and open exploration.

I genuinely think the combat in Solasta is better and more fun than in BG 3, since it doesn't feel as reliant on gimmicks (they exist in Solasta as well, but are used in moderation generally).


Early on for me to fully compare. But I feel there are more pointers for Larian to take vs the other way and not negatively meant that Solasta is the better game. It is just the production values Larian is putting into the game take a lot of people, lot of talent and time, this is peak Bioware levels. As someone said you can't just tell your artists you have to do better and they just can and produce 5x more. The pointers Larian would take from Solasta are not one's that require massive manpower and artistic talent, just more like idea planting and implementing.
Originally Posted by Kendaric
On the other hand Solasta could learn a lot from BG 3, like good UI design and open exploration.


This is really an opinion because I think BG3's UI is pretty random and absolutely not beautifull... It has a very MMORPG taste...
Solasta's UI is strange because it looks like an alien space game UI, but the general design/the idea is way better and more consistent.
This is also an opinion.
My issue (if you can even call it that) with Solesta is that it's too niche of a game. Most people won't even hear about it, but I'm sure it will get it's following
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Kendaric
On the other hand Solasta could learn a lot from BG 3, like good UI design and open exploration.


This is really an opinion because I think BG3's UI is pretty random and absolutely not beautifull... It has a very MMORPG taste...
Solasta's UI is strange because it looks like an alien space game UI, but the general design/the idea is way better.
This is also an opinion.


One thing I can nitpick Solasta on is like inventory management between players, the inventory is on the far right and the avatars the far left. So it is click-drag all the way across to the avatar you want to move it to and if you are doing wholesale changes you think to yourself, it would be nice their avatars were right to the side of the inventory.

They also need to hotkey their Stealh Mode, should be Control as that is default for most games. Otherwise while moving you have to click lower center.

Sounds like a lot of Solasta talk but it shows that each game while imperfect can tweak what they have. As said I hope both games come out better because of EA, it's like sort of the main idea behind it.
Originally Posted by Syrek
It's a matter of individual taste. Do you also post in Solasta's Dev forum and ask them to make their game look more like BG3 because Solasta is ugly?
It's like telling an artist "Why don't you make your music more like THAT guy? I like his better than yours!"
First of all that's very impolite and entitled. And second, you always have the choice to play what you like.


Originally Posted by Sadurian
At this stage of proceedings, I imagine that Larian have a pretty good idea of the fundamental mechanics behind their game. Pointing to another game saying that you like it is very unlikely to make them decide to throw out most of the development work to date and try to replicate a different one.

I like GURPS better than D&D. Hey, Larian, can you change the game for me please?


There's a reason why Larian puts their games out for early access - it's because they want feedback.

Larian has advertised that they've been making a game based on D&D 5e for at least a year. However, it seems clear that they're concerned that people won't find it fun, and so they made a lot of arbitrary changes to the rules. Pointing to another game that follows 5e, and did not make such changes to combat and saying "the combat in that game is better than in your game" is feedback.

I liked and played D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. I've played BG 3 in EA and Solasta in EA, and while the roleplaying elements, graphics, and world of BG 3 are superior to Solasta, the combat in BG 3 isn't as fun as Solasta's, and it is largely because of the rule changes Larian made which are fighting with the rest of the rules.

Larian has been saying that the full game is out for release in a year. Now is exactly the time to experiment with changes. A lot of people are saying, "this small game from a 17-person team using the same ruleset has better-feeling combat". If I was a developer, that's something which I would take note of.

I think it's great that both of these titles are in EA at the same time.

The more I read the more I'm tempted to try out Solasta. I watched some videos and found the voiceovers and graphics painful but it looked like you could actually move your party into position, you could have a 6 person party and you still had the cool tabletop experience of doing things like pushing a boulder to collapse a bridge.

Edit, agreed with @stabbey if people are finding Solasta's combat fun that this important feedback. It don't like the way the HP bloat diminishes crowd control and how the lowering of AC makes the cleric cantrips useless.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
The more I read the more I'm tempted to try out Solasta. I watched some videos and found the voiceovers and graphics painful but it looked like you could actually move your party into position, you could have a 6 person party and you still had the cool tabletop experience of doing things like pushing a boulder to collapse a bridge.

Edit, agreed with @stabbey if people are finding Solasta's combat fun that this important feedback. It don't like the way the HP bloat diminishes crowd control and how the lowering of AC makes the cleric cantrips useless.

If I worked on Solasta I'd actually dump the realistic graphics and maybe full voiceover and go for an artistic approach akin to games like PoE and Bastion, so that the budget becomes a smaller problem.

But the combat is spot on, is like an almost 100% translation of the books. You can do there pretty much everything you would be able to do on tabletop.
Originally Posted by Syrek
It's a matter of individual taste. Do you also post in Solasta's Dev forum and ask them to make their game look more like BG3 because Solasta is ugly?
It's like telling an artist "Why don't you make your music more like THAT guy? I like his better than yours!"
First of all that's very impolite and entitled. And second, you always have the choice to play what you like.


Except that they are SPECIFICALLY asking for our feedback. This is EXACTLY why we are even in early access. Both games will likely borrow off of eachother. They would both be smart to do so.
Agree with both @Stabbey and @KillerRabbit. You guys are doing a great job of voicing my own views so I don't need to repeat them. smile

Just suffice it to say that even though I generally hate TB combat, I enthusiastically backed Solasta as soon as it was announced and have been very supportive of that game on their forum.
For me, the two are different and have different pros and cons.

Things I like about BG3:
> Looks lovely (except for elf faces)
> excellent visual fidelity
> good voice acting
> decent writing (i cant say more than that as to me, the very premise of the game should be for much higher level characters)
> excellent setting (forgotten realms is my favourite)
> access to full suite of D&D options (not that they'll all be implemented, but right now, there is hope for certain things)
> multiplayer (more for the potential to do proper D&D style games with the game and friends... if it gets closer to D&D)

Things I dont like about BG3:
> It's combat (I dislike changes to action economy, i find a lot of the combat controls clunky)
> Larians messing with a lot of core D&D 5e rules they had no need to mess with, stuff like action types, movement options, scroll use etc (by now most of them have been voiced many times)
> the companions (I just don't find them likeable)
> Origin characters (links to companions, but making them all special snowflakes just means it's harder to see how custom character will be special and also shows a similar issue to D:OS2)
> world interaction (feels awkward)
> excessive loot (just makes it not feel valuable),
> UI (it's absolutely rubbish, nothing is very clear, everything feels small and awkward and whilst it doesn't take up much space, it could be much better.)
> Party controls (I didn't like them D:OS2, I don't like them here).
> Party not interacting with dialogues (and typically standing around totally unanimated in the background despite events
> Main character animations in dialogues, just feel weird tbh, like the creepy grins and stuff they do look like they belong in a sims game
> % based attack changes and weirdly calculated DCs in dialogues (don't subtract bonuses from the DC, show me the DC and show me a dice roll plus my bonus, ideally show me bonus before the dice roll)
> All the surfaces and their implementation, I HATE auto damage surfaces and their abundance... if they required a save for half or none (depending on the surface I guess) it would be better.

Things I like about Solasta:
> It's UI, whilst it isn't all textured and pretty, it's super functional and clear and easy to use. I feel like most information I need is where I'd want.
> It's combat, i feel like it plays smoothly and is very good, implementation of reactions etc is perfect, honestly this is where Solasta really hammers BG3 for me the most
> Sticks pretty closely to D&D 5e rules (although im not sure about their change to lighting rules)
> More grounded beginnings with hints that the main game will escalate
> Approach to party inclusion of dialogue (though the actual dialogue quality... not so much)
> Party controls, really, they're excellent, you can drag select them, select them individually etc, they move around nicely and interact with environment automatically)
> Environment interaction, feels really intuitive
> character creation options (dice rolling vs points buy vs even free points setting, which means some people will cheat, but also means I can make my pnp party using their exact rolled stats, which is a big win)
> full suite of D&D coins, it's rare to see and quite fun to see tbh
> character traits linked to background and alignment, really nice way to add dialogue options and also personality to the dialogue.

Things I dont like about Solasta:
> Cinematic Dialogues, the graphics are acceptable for isometric view, they aren't spectacular, but they aren't terrible... however in dialogue the models and animations aren't up to par so cinematic dialogue detracts a lot
> Writing quality, the actual quality of the dialogues is um.. not so great and the general flow of some dialogue feels weird
> Lack of full D&D options, just a result of their license only covering SRD... would be great if wizards saw their progress and made some kind of deal with them
> Balance, their custom subraces seem typically flat out better than SRD ones, similar issue with their custom class archetypes and feats, also with backgrounds
> Won't have multiclassing (they try to make up for it a bit through custom backgrounds and feats I guess though)
> Voice acting, just isn't as good, and is quite limited
> character creation visual customisation, character models look pretty ugly, but there also aren't many options.
> camera controls (they're really quite painfully bad)



Do I think either game is perfect?
Nope! And they both could learn a thing from eachother.

Do I think Solasta is better than BG3?
No, I like things about both, and dislike things about both, I will say that what I've played of Solasta so far, I've been more impressed with.

Do I think both will improve on their flaws?
Hopefully! For me, BG3 has more flaws, however Solasta has a much smaller team, so their flaws will be harder to overcome.

Will I play both?
Yes I think so, I bought early access for both, I'm not playing either early access with the intention of finishing all the content in them, I tend to try different things in a fairly small part of the game, and watch other people play things online


Ultimately, for me in an ideal world I'd have a game that combined BG3 setting, full D&D ruleset access, visuals and voice acting, with Solasta combat, UI, Party controls and world interaction. Ideally it's story would start off a bit smaller before building to BG3 intro and then continuing past it. Obviously, that won't happen, so I'll take what I can get from both and hope the negatives of each aren't enough to make me stop playing them!
Originally Posted by Hawker
Originally Posted by Syrek
It's a matter of individual taste. Do you also post in Solasta's Dev forum and ask them to make their game look more like BG3 because Solasta is ugly?
It's like telling an artist "Why don't you make your music more like THAT guy? I like his better than yours!"
First of all that's very impolite and entitled. And second, you always have the choice to play what you like.


Except that they are SPECIFICALLY asking for our feedback. This is EXACTLY why we are even in early access. Both games will likely borrow off of eachother. They would both be smart to do so.


Honestly I hope that both studios steal good ideas from each other!
4 flagons of your finest donkey piss please!
Originally Posted by Merry Mayhem
Originally Posted by Hawker
Originally Posted by Syrek
It's a matter of individual taste. Do you also post in Solasta's Dev forum and ask them to make their game look more like BG3 because Solasta is ugly?
It's like telling an artist "Why don't you make your music more like THAT guy? I like his better than yours!"
First of all that's very impolite and entitled. And second, you always have the choice to play what you like.


Except that they are SPECIFICALLY asking for our feedback. This is EXACTLY why we are even in early access. Both games will likely borrow off of eachother. They would both be smart to do so.


Honestly I hope that both studios steal good ideas from each other!

That's why I made this post. I hope they do.
blindhamster's post is way more detailed than I have the patience to produce. I agree with at least 75% of the details and the bottom line. The two games are apples and oranges. Yeah they're both fruit (DnD 5e), but way different in scope style, etc. Could they borrow from each other and both be better? Maybe. But to compare the two is can only come down to subjective taste.
Originally Posted by RumRunner151
blindhamster's post is way more detailed than I have the patience to produce. I agree with at least 75% of the details and the bottom line. The two games are apples and oranges. Yeah they're both fruit (DnD 5e), but way different in scope style, etc. Could they borrow from each other and both be better? Maybe. But to compare the two is can only come down to subjective taste.

Not actually, they are more like two kinds of apple.
There is nothing subjective about about better combat being a good thing. Solasta adresses most of the negative feedback about BG3's combat.
Never even heard of Solasta till now, just like i'm sure their are other games from small developers I don't even know about. I also think majority of people have never heard of the developer or this game Solasta. Yet of course like any game it will have followers and people who play it.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
The more I read the more I'm tempted to try out Solasta. I watched some videos and found the voiceovers and graphics painful but it looked like you could actually move your party into position, you could have a 6 person party and you still had the cool tabletop experience of doing things like pushing a boulder to collapse a bridge.

Edit, agreed with @stabbey if people are finding Solasta's combat fun that this important feedback. It don't like the way the HP bloat diminishes crowd control and how the lowering of AC makes the cleric cantrips useless.


The party is made up of four (custom) characters in Solasta. I think this is probably because 4 player party has been standard/average in DnD since... 3rd Edition. (Checks: To be more precise, 5e is designed for 3-5, but yeah.) So all the published modules are designed around that ideal. Standard 6 player parties are a thing of the past.

Z.

P.S. I still love BG3. Solasta is great too. I am very happy to have two cakes!
I think both games could learn from some mechanics from each other, but I do not think you could compare both. Not only because of the budget but because they have a fundamentally different game conception:
BG3 has a lot of exploration but it´s a story-driven game. Solasta is more of a 5e dungeon crawler where you create your entire party yourself.

To make a comparison, one is Baldur´s gate, the other is Icewind Dale. You can pick things from each other about UI, combat, etc, but they require a different approach to everything else.

If the existence of this game is news from any RPG fan, I encourage you to check it. It´s a entertaining indie game (with the usual flaws of an indie game made by 17 people) and you can feel the devs of tactical adventures really care about the game.
Originally Posted by Zandilar
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
The more I read the more I'm tempted to try out Solasta. I watched some videos and found the voiceovers and graphics painful but it looked like you could actually move your party into position, you could have a 6 person party and you still had the cool tabletop experience of doing things like pushing a boulder to collapse a bridge.

Edit, agreed with @stabbey if people are finding Solasta's combat fun that this important feedback. It don't like the way the HP bloat diminishes crowd control and how the lowering of AC makes the cleric cantrips useless.


The party is made up of four (custom) characters in Solasta. I think this is probably because 4 player party has been standard/average in DnD since... 3rd Edition. (Checks: To be more precise, 5e is designed for 3-5, but yeah.) So all the published modules are designed around that ideal. Standard 6 player parties are a thing of the past.

Z.

P.S. I still love BG3. Solasta is great too. I am very happy to have two cakes!


Interesting so are the extra two here followers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeG11CsZuNw

Granted I just clicked around and didn't watch begging to end. Around 16:00 you see 6 slots for party but only 4 portraits . . .


Originally Posted by _Vic_
I think both games could learn from some mechanics from each other, but I do not think you could compare both. Not only because of the budget but because they have a fundamentally different game conception:
BG3 has a lot of exploration but it´s a story-driven game. Solasta is more of a 5e dungeon crawler where you create your entire party yourself.

To make a comparison, one is Baldur´s gate, the other is Icewind Dale. You can pick things from each other about UI, combat, etc, but they require a different approach to everything else.

If the existence of this game is news from any RPG fan, I encourage you to check it. It´s a entertaining indie game (with the usual flaws of an indie game made by 17 people) and you can feel the devs of tactical adventures really care about the game.

I don't think it's fair to compare Solasta to Icewind Dale actually. It's closer to BG2 in terms of party banter and discussion.

In fact, having played more Solasta, im continually impressed with the approach to party dialogue. Whilst the actual voice acting isn't as good as BG3, the backgrounds for each character and the personality traits chosen result in unique options and dialogue for each character... which is frankly better than BG3 manages - remembering that BG3 doesn't have any true NPCs, it has a bunch of player options that double up as non-editable PCs with set (always the same) stories. The inter-party dialogue as your progress with Solasta definitely makes me feel far more like I'm playing a tabletop game with actual people than BG3 has managed to do.

BG3 has better player to NPC dialogue. But Solasta does a much better job of inter-party. It's a majority dungeon crawler (which BG1 was as well tbh) with a relatively linear story path though.

Originally Posted by Iszaryn
Never even heard of Solasta till now, just like i'm sure their are other games from small developers I don't even know about. I also think majority of people have never heard of the developer or this game Solasta. Yet of course like any game it will have followers and people who play it.


To be fair, it was a game that got kickstartered (much like the original sin games), but has an even smaller team (just 17 people), as far as "the majority of people never heard of Solasta" I doubt that's true even now, chances are that a good proportion of people interested in D&D based RPGs were aware of Solasta, not all clearly, but probably a good proportion, and if they weren't there's a good chance they will be quickly as many people are going to compare the two D&D5e Early access games that came out and will probably release at similar times. Also seems like both studios are aware and promoting eachother a bit too based on twitter and forums.

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit


Interesting so are the extra two here followers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeG11CsZuNw

Granted I just clicked around and didn't watch begging to end. Around 16:00 you see 6 slots for party but only 4 portraits . . .



You make 4 PCs, pretty standard D&D 5e character creation with the addition of you getting casual, formal or slang speech style based on backgrounds (actually changes dialogues) and personality traits based on alignment and background, so each of the 4 PCs has more "built in" personality than many games, that said, you lose the ability to choose multiple dialogue options for a single character in favour of each character potentially being able to approach the same situation in multiple ways based on personality and skills.

When you get 2 NPC companions, you control them, but dont level them up etc, their two portraits show as mini ones below the main 4.


Originally Posted by Danielbda

Not actually, they are more like two kinds of apple.
There is nothing subjective about about better combat being a good thing. Solasta adresses most of the negative feedback about BG3's combat.


I agree with this sentiment, you can definitely compare them, they're both ultimately games trying to do the same thing (create a CRPG based on D&D 5e ruleset with a party of 4 characters). The actual story may be different but they're so close in terms of what they are they can absolutely be compared,
As far as comparing them goes... These are purely my views, Arrow points from best to worst ( x is better than y would be X > Y)

GRAPHICS AND VISUALS
Environment Visuals
BG > Solasta
Character Visuals
BG > Solasta
UI
BG < Solasta
Cutscenes
BG > Solasta
Camera Controls
BG = Solasta

for me, BG wins on visuals overal, but notably, I much prefer Solasta UI and UX.

SOUND
Voice acting
BG > Solasta
Music
BG > Solasta

easy win for BG on sound

STORY
Setting
BG > Solasta
Main Dialogue
BG > Solasta
Party Dialogue
BG < Solasta
Dialogue options
BG > Solasta
Story Pacing
BG = Solasta

BG wins again

GAMEPLAY
Following D&D Rules
BG < Solasta
D&D Mechanics changes
BG < Solasta
Combat fluidity
BG < Solasta
Encounter design
BG = Solasta
Environment control
BG < Solasta
Party Control
BG < Solasta
Current Game Balance
BG = Solasta
Ease of play
BG < Solasta
Combat Feedback
BG < Solasta
Combat tooltops
BG > Solasta

Solasta absolutely destroys BG3 here for me.

CHARACTER
Character Visual Customisation
BG > Solasta
Character Personality Customisation
BG < Solasta
Character mechanics customisation
BG < Solasta
Character sound customisation
BG = Solasta
Character sound quality
BG > Solasta
Race Selection
BG > Solasta
Class Selection
BG = Solasta
Background Selection
BG < Solasta

Character side is about equal tbh.


Note... obviously a lot of the above will cahnge over time.
Having tried out both, I much prefer Solasta's combat mechanics to BG3. It felt less clunky and gimicky (which is something Larian seems to enjoy doing in all their games). Fights were generally fairly balanced without having to rely on always needing advantage/cheesy tactics in order to win. BG3 is obviously much prettier, and has the advantage of a bigger studio with a much larger budget. Chargen in Solasta feels much better though, and I felt like I could make the character I really wanted to play, rather than a rubber-stamped version of that class. Hopefully BG3 will allow for rolling stats eventually, rather than using the "standard array", which annoys the hell out of me due to its max cap of 15.

I definitely vastly prefer seeing the actual die rolls to just "hit" or "miss" and having to check the combat log for the numbers. I also like the fact that mousing over a target will tell me if I have advantage or disadvantage, and for what reason (unlit/low light, high ground, etc).

Personally, I don't think the graphics are bad, or "painfully horrible" as some people have said -- I think those people might be a WEE bit spoiled, and probably haven't been gaming long enough to remember early game graphics like EQ before the model update, or Asheron's Call. smile

The story so far is EXTREMELY linear, which is disappointing, but hopefully once they've added more and more stuff you'll be able to wander all over the big world map wherever you want, which would make it very cool.

Plus, you start out as a random group meeting up in a tavern. You can't beat that. smile
Solasta is more a tactical combat game with 5e and story, while BG3 is a fantasy story with 5e and combat tactics. Both doing more or less a little homebrewing.

Its like "Fallout Tactics" <-> "Fallout 2"

or maybe "Icewind Dale" <-> "Baldurs Gate 2"

Solasta is not bad, its also fun, but totally different game compared to bg3 which is super immersive!
Solasta feels like doing a pen & paper round. A bit generic, but also tactical freedom and less story driven.

what I totally like about Solasta is the possibility to build your own party!

And what I totally like about BG3 is the world building, all the little details and the sheer amount of things to do and to discover. I think I started my 10th playthrough and am still discovering new things in ACT I!! thats is the highest variety I have ever witnessed in Gaming.
Fextralife channel (and some other channels, forgot the name) was trying out the game and just kept on comparing to BG3...It destroys it basically in terms of gameplay, rule set, and atmosphere.
You have super tight 5e rules, great fun turn base action with detailed/ clear explanations, BG like selection/movement including live ROLL checks (on screen) and jumps are full party automatic, amazing BG like atmosphere, day/night cycles, create your own party, fun pick your character for responses dialogue etc etc...
In the end nearly everything expect the graphics , UI, companion detailed stories and sex is better. lol
AND its still in EA...
So yea I am actually exited for Solasta ! !
Just saw the trailer for the game and wonder how good the story is. The bits the trailer provides give the impression of the most generic story I have ever seen in a video game
Originally Posted by Abits
Just saw the trailer for the game and wonder how good the story is. The bits the trailer provides give the impression of the most generic story I have ever seen in a video game


From what I've seen so far (I played through the EA story) is your adventurers are tasked with going to check out a keep, you find out some things are going on there, and start looking into it. You find some Big Thing(tm) is going on, and are sucked into being the ones to go and deal with it. Pretty much every party-based fantasy story in a nutshell. What I like the most about it is that it FEELS like a tabletop D&D game, just played on the pc. And that appeals to me a lot. You can call it "generic", I'd call it "classic". It's done by a lot of books, movies, shows, etc for a reason. It's a tried and true storytelling trope.
Originally Posted by WumpusRat
Originally Posted by Abits
Just saw the trailer for the game and wonder how good the story is. The bits the trailer provides give the impression of the most generic story I have ever seen in a video game


From what I've seen so far (I played through the EA story) is your adventurers are tasked with going to check out a keep, you find out some things are going on there, and start looking into it. You find some Big Thing(tm) is going on, and are sucked into being the ones to go and deal with it. Pretty much every party-based fantasy story in a nutshell. What I like the most about it is that it FEELS like a tabletop D&D game, just played on the pc. And that appeals to me a lot. You can call it "generic", I'd call it "classic". It's done by a lot of books, movies, shows, etc for a reason. It's a tried and true storytelling trope.

Yeah generic is a bad word. I suppose even "generic" story done right could be great.
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by WumpusRat
Originally Posted by Abits
Just saw the trailer for the game and wonder how good the story is. The bits the trailer provides give the impression of the most generic story I have ever seen in a video game


From what I've seen so far (I played through the EA story) is your adventurers are tasked with going to check out a keep, you find out some things are going on there, and start looking into it. You find some Big Thing(tm) is going on, and are sucked into being the ones to go and deal with it. Pretty much every party-based fantasy story in a nutshell. What I like the most about it is that it FEELS like a tabletop D&D game, just played on the pc. And that appeals to me a lot. You can call it "generic", I'd call it "classic". It's done by a lot of books, movies, shows, etc for a reason. It's a tried and true storytelling trope.

Yeah generic is a bad word. I suppose even "generic" story done right could be great.

Well we're seeing this in movies and TV shows too, right? It's becoming extremely difficult to come up with a storyline that is original while not being ridiculous and/or cheesy. So I think we have to expect and accept that not all RPGs are going to have some amazing story nobody else had ever done previously. But the standard instead should be has it been done right.
I'm glad i've picked up both as early access, of the two I'm having more actual fun playing Solasta honestly (I find the combat much much better, and the world exploration, resting and area navigation much better, though its camera is irksome!), but BG3 hopefully will get polish on the gameplay side and general interaction side.

What i find most incredible about Solasta, is that it was done by a frankly tiny team... the team is about the same size as the team I'm part of for my current project, and its very impressive to see what they pulled off.

I think Solastas isometric graphics are downright good (BG3s are better), its character models are decent but a bit dated, its lighting is good for environments but not so food for characters in dialogues, Im sure they can sort things out. I think the face and hair models are generally pretty ugly, but again, all it would take is one particularly talented person to come along and provide them with more options and it would fix that.

The story is definitely classic D&D, and very nostalgic to play, the interaction between characters is really nice, i particularly like the fact backstories and the personality tags chosen seem to actually change things. It's good. Will it be a huge sweeping epic? who knows, it has humble beginnings like all good D&D stories should, that being one of the main gripes about BG3 I have aired here and to my pnp groups, BG3 starts at a point i'd expect higher level characters to be in, and it just makes it feel forced (cool, but forced)
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Well we're seeing this in movies and TV shows too, right? It's becoming extremely difficult to come up with a storyline that is original while not being ridiculous and/or cheesy. So I think we have to expect and accept that not all RPGs are going to have some amazing story nobody else had ever done previously. But the standard instead should be has it been done right.


Even BG3's story isn't all that original, honestly. "Player is afflicted by X, which is going to kill them unless they get rid of it, while gaining powers from the affliction". It's a lot like the Curse of the Azure Bonds game, just with a different thing that applied the affliction. smile

Of course, we've only seen act-1 of BG3 yet, so I'm hoping there's a lot of cool stuff to come in acts 2 and 3.
It is not just the UI, party management and combat that is better.

The atmosphere, day/night cycle, the combat animations, the colour palette all adds to immersion. Larian should seriously learn from them.

Originally Posted by WumpusRat
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Well we're seeing this in movies and TV shows too, right? It's becoming extremely difficult to come up with a storyline that is original while not being ridiculous and/or cheesy. So I think we have to expect and accept that not all RPGs are going to have some amazing story nobody else had ever done previously. But the standard instead should be has it been done right.


Even BG3's story isn't all that original, honestly. "Player is afflicted by X, which is going to kill them unless they get rid of it, while gaining powers from the affliction". It's a lot like the Curse of the Azure Bonds game, just with a different thing that applied the affliction. smile

Of course, we've only seen act-1 of BG3 yet, so I'm hoping there's a lot of cool stuff to come in acts 2 and 3.


Disagree. The ceromorphosis is superinteresting and quite original theme.
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3

Disagree. The ceromorphosis is superinteresting and quite original theme.


I mean in terms of theme. There are always different variations on it, but "Character is afflicted by X, and seeks a way to remove it" is a fairly common trope.

Doesn't mean it can't be very cool though. smile
Most who are interested into RPGs have heard about the game a long time ago. The game has seen quite some coverage on various fan sites (a German mainstream print mag has even run a multiple page preview). Naturally Larian know it too (edit: as already mentioned on the first page I just saw).

https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1318641976556855297

I've only played the demo sometime around Summer, but liked what I saw. It's a game that appears more heavily focused on combat encounters though, overall.
Originally Posted by WumpusRat
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3

Disagree. The ceromorphosis is superinteresting and quite original theme.


I mean in terms of theme. There are always different variations on it, but "Character is afflicted by X, and seeks a way to remove it" is a fairly common trope.

Doesn't mean it can't be very cool though. smile


If you generalize enough everything sounds the same : "the main character tries to save himself".

Ceromorphosis is heavily rooted in D&D/FR lore and is a very nice and new concept to explore. So Kudos to Larian.

Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
It is not just the UI, party management and combat that is better.

The atmosphere, day/night cycle, the combat animations, the colour palette all adds to immersion. Larian should seriously learn from them.

Originally Posted by WumpusRat
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Well we're seeing this in movies and TV shows too, right? It's becoming extremely difficult to come up with a storyline that is original while not being ridiculous and/or cheesy. So I think we have to expect and accept that not all RPGs are going to have some amazing story nobody else had ever done previously. But the standard instead should be has it been done right.


Even BG3's story isn't all that original, honestly. "Player is afflicted by X, which is going to kill them unless they get rid of it, while gaining powers from the affliction". It's a lot like the Curse of the Azure Bonds game, just with a different thing that applied the affliction. smile

Of course, we've only seen act-1 of BG3 yet, so I'm hoping there's a lot of cool stuff to come in acts 2 and 3.


Disagree. The ceromorphosis is superinteresting and quite original theme.


I agree on all points.

Also, it's nice to see you still cannot be caged and cannot be controlled
Just for demographics sake, I'm 40. Started my crpg games with Ultima 3, 4, and 6. Played the old AD&D Gold box games, did "not" play BG1&2 or Icewind Dale, "did" play Neverwinter Nights (not the gold box one, the one in 2000s), but not NWN 2, I played the Witcher series, the first Dragon Age and Divinity Original Sin 2. Then went back and bought DoS 1, but never played the rest of the Divinity series. I am not a huge fan of the Elderscrolls but I did play Oblivion and Skyrim. As well I played Fallout 3 and 4 (just a generalized layout of my gaming experience in this genre, not going into everything).

So started from what I would consider the beginning and saw the parts of the golden age and the revival of crpg gaming is what I'm trying to say. I did not however have an extensive experience playing tabletop D&D. I have played maybe 3 games in recent years. Read the monster manual and dm books when I was around 13 for what ever edition of D&D it was at that time, but never played an organized game (I wanted to play but for such an antisocial nerd thing at the time, I didn't have enough friends to play D&D with, lol!).

I did "not" like Solasta. Combat was ancillary to me, the atmosphere felt generic, the story (not the actual script of words and voice acting, just generalized story) felt amateurish and a lot of lore dump at the beginning was off putting (you can avoid it by skipping those conversation trees).

The UI was too large and in my face. Cumbersome and inflexible is how I would describe it. I did not get good tooltip information or combat feedback in the log, just raw numbers and generalized action descriptions (you hit for x damage vs your attack rolls was 15 (11 on d20 +2 proficiency + 2 str modifier) you hit on AC 10 doing 8 dmg (4 on 1d6 + 2 str mod))

User controls were very restricting as far as camera rotation and zooming in an out (BG3 was also annoying but now I am less frustrated after playing Solasta).

As far as actual combat, that was fine. I understand the general rules and mechanics of D&D though, so it is not difficult. It is very much so restrictive on what you can do per a turn and shows how much bg3 is breaking those rules by allowing you to attack, disengage, push, eat/drink potion, offhand attack, throw an object or persion, hide, help a downed ally.

The ruleset of skills also seemed less buggy, for example offhand wpn getting proficiency on every character in BG3 when it states you shouldn't, or devil's sight not working in magical darkness, silence not working on harpies. This may be due to EA and they have to adjust the divinity engine to do these things still, or just completely ignoring the rules and they are going to leave it that way. We will have to wait to see how they adjust the game to the feedback.

So I think what people like is there are less bugs and inconsistencies in Solasta, but it is also less ambitious and just a 1:1 game development on an engine that was built for mass use by any developer.

I would think I am the demographic that would be heralding Solasta with you guys, but I actually find it dated and boring.

Wondering how I differ from the rest of you. Younger crowd? More table top experience? Or are we the same demographic but I just like different things.
Similar demographic, I'm a little younger at just shy of 33, with nearly 23 years playing tabletop and crpgs.

I played baldurs gate 1&2, icewind dale 1&2, siege of dragon spear, both original sins, pathfinder kingmaker, both pillars of eternity, all three dragon age games, all the fallout games (even van buren), daggerfall, morrowind, oblivion, skyrim, prince of qin, all three witcher games, titan quest, diablo 1 & 2, dragons dogma, breath of the wild, the mass effect series, torchlight 1 & 2, various final fantasies, gothic series, deus ex series and a whole bunch of others I cant think of the names off hand.

I imagine we are the same demographic, just came to somewhat different conclusions based on what was provided.
Originally Posted by CMF

Wondering how I differ from the rest of you. Younger crowd? More table top experience? Or are we the same demographic but I just like different things.


You probably won't find all that much "younger crowd" here. CRPGs are a 30 and up thing apparently, statistically speaking. Which does kind of make sense because we grew up with these kinds of games. They're called "classic" for a reason. I'm in my 30s so I'm a tiny bit younger, but I share most of your opinions as far as these two games go.

Originally Posted by Syrek

I know, a lot of alleged "Betas" of other games (which are actually glorified marketing demos) have convinced you that you can still have major input on a games' design when it's already far enough along that you can play it without crashing every 2 minutes and every model has textures and animations. But that's not how development works in real life.


Quoting myself here from earlier in the discussion. I'm aware that this EA phase isn't one of these "marketing betas" and Larian really does want our feedback.
It also looks like they are ready to change up quite a bit of stuff, especially regarding combat and pacing.
What I don't think however, and what's a bit of a fallacy in this thread, is that they can afford revamping major sections of the game like a large part of the combat system or vast parts of story progression.
Tweak things, sure. Iron out bugs like falsely added proficiency bonuses or wrong calculations, tune down surface effects or give goblins less elemental flasks to throw. That's changing numbers and values, relatively easy to do and cost effective.
Maybe they'll even manage to give the party an auto jump ability, since that doesn't seem to be a minor annoyance that takes up like 2 minutes of your lifetime every 2 hours or so, but a game breaking bug that needs to be fixed instantly.
I'm quite positive however that they won't make sweeping changes to the story, call in the whole cast again to record new lines and animate new cutscenes for act 1. These actors are probably quite busy recording conversations for act 2 or 3 right now, production is in full swing and the devs have a buttload of work to do to get this even close to a finished state in a year. I'd personally expect at least 1,5 years to be optimistic. This isn't alpha or beta anymore. We (okay, most of us) weren't invited to that.

I honestly was wondering if it was because I played games before bg1&2 I had a different perspective. 10 Years of gaming is a big difference between 30 and 40 year olds. rtwp wasn't what I was familiar with and I am less enamored with surface level cosmetics such as random banter of npcs while traveling, one liner quips and catch phrases that a few have been referencing with the other games.

There came a time where I loved lore heavy games and a lot of slow paced in depth things. I have moved somewhat away from that and while I want to be caught up in a game, I don't want to play time consuming mini games like inventory management, hunger bars, grind fests to level. I am on the fence with random encounters. Sometimes random encounters are nice because it changes up the game and keeps the world a threat. Other times I really just want to get from point A to B and not have to worry about things slowing me down (on the other hand, without random encounters, you "HAVE" to make sure you fight everything you can to ensure you get the most exp possible).

Since I am enjoying BG3 so much, I am waiting to pull the trigger and go back and play BG1&2. Kind of waiting for a GOG or Steam sale, as I am surprised it is still $60 as a bundle (if I don't remove the custom portraits and music, it is somewhere closer to $90). I avoided going back on those games over the last few years, even before I knew about BG3, because they were dated and didn't want to buy another game on Steam to not play it due to disillusion of nostalgia gaming after purchase.

I do feel it is my duty to play them now, so I can understand the conversation and any discontent this game is receiving. That way I can have intellectual conversations instead of disagreeing with something I never experienced.
It's an interesting test to play both games back to back to see how they approach mechanics. That's for sure.

Turn-based combat is always trash though. We're not at 1990 with processing power, rtwp should be the standard everywhere.
gonna have to disagree with you there chum laugh but these things are subjective and entirely down to personal preference as the huge thread discussing that very topic highlights
I'm impressed with what I've played of Solasta so far. It's amazing what only 17 folks can do with so little money. Of course, I don't know how much funding they have besides the Kickstarter.
Watched some videos of Sorastra and it certainely has my interest, as combat looks really good..i Like the travel system with random encounters...Definately on my wishlist and yes, some things I saw in the EA video's could be added to BG3 to make it a better game in my opinion.
If that will happen, only Larian knows.
when it comes down to it, Solasta apparently has a 6 month early access planned and probably 1/10th the size team working on it. BG3 has a 1 year early access planned and as noted, a significantly larger team

This means that whilst, right now Solasta feels significantly better to play in terms of exploration, travel, combat and world interaction, Larian has the power to massively improve BG3 during its early access, whereas Tactical Adventures will be much harder pressed to make meaningful changes to their engine or game.Solasta will likely not meaningfully change in terms of visuals or mechanics between now and released I'd guess (6 months in dev time really isn't all that long, the project I've been working on has been going for about 18 months at this point and whilst its business software because I'm not lucky enough to work in the games industry, I know the turnaround for even small changes when you include QA time etc is quite large).

IMO, Tactical Adventures seem to have focused on what was important to their vision first, i.e. they've ensured they've got a pretty excellent functional D&D 5e SRD game (the SRD part is important, because they dont have rights to use the majority of D&D content), visuals aren't as good and I don't expect that to change between now and release, balance of a lot of their custom stuff needs some work, but I expect that will change as it gets closer to release. The key thing is, their early access time can focus on adding story content and fixing bugs. Both games have their share of bugs right now.

I'm currently more looking forward to playing Solasta in its final form, but I'm more looking forward to experiencing BG3 in its.
Originally Posted by Ignatius
I'm impressed with what I've played of Solasta so far. It's amazing what only 17 folks can do with so little money. Of course, I don't know how much funding they have besides the Kickstarter.


IMO 17 people with Unity isn't a bad number for a game like this.

One thing I haven't felt yet with this offering vs other unity offerings in this genre is the load time blues, so good planning on that, it can become a breaking point for me.

As in final form, I know right now if Larian doesn't have a more "true 5e experience" there will be mods available soon after, so if that is a big big thing for me, I know I'm covered either way.

Larian needs to work on their UI overall, it's always been their weak point. These are things that will be harder to mod if at all. It seems from initial demo sessions to now, it is like they were 1/2 way done with the makeover.

I kinda want to try it, but the visual design ain't doing anything for me.
I prefer more fantasy designs, I get really bored very quickly when gear looks so '' basic '' as in Solasta.
Baldur's Gate is kinda like that right now but I think it's going to get better later on and it's not as bad.
I like it when there's some sense of self-expression in the gear rather than it looking like it was made on a conveyor belt lol, characters basically just looking like random generic soldiers/ guards is a huge turn off for me in games.

I do understand the comparisons with Baldur's Gate 3 too but I think people should be a bit careful about that.
The gameplay in Solasta does look good but there's so much missing right now in Baldur's Gate 3 like half the classes lol.
I don't think that Baldur's Gate 3 being a bit easier to approach either is necessarily a bad thing.
I mean a surprising amount of people are already finding it to be too complex as it is, I disagree with that but the game has attracted a lot of people who have no former knowledge of DnD.


I downloaded it today, and have played a bit (now up to level 3). My thoughts.

1. Combat is indeed much more fun/rewarding in Solasta than in BG3.

2. The camera is super-easy to work with in comparison to BG3.

3. The interface is much simpler, though it feels a bit unfinished at the same time, insofar as the design doesn't seem entirely appropriate for a fantasy RPG.

4. The way that party dialogue works means the game has basically no roleplaying to speak of. You create all four of your characters, giving them unique classes, alignments, backgrounds, and a few personality traits. But when you talk to NPCs, you are basically given four options - one for each character. That means that there's really one, and only one thing each character can interject at a given time. The characters are all 100% voice acted, which is nice in a way, but there's simply not quite enough flavor put into each one to give a real idea that each of your characters has a unique personality. I mean, my mage chimes in with history/arcana lore from time to time, and people recognize their co-religionists, but my Paladin has said pretty un-Paladin things as well.

5. Once you take out all the mechanics stuff, it's just not as good of a game, period. The game appears to be almost entirely linear, and outside of combat mechanics, each encounter seems to have been designed to have one - and only one - successful outcome. This is much more simplistic than what Larian is attempting to design. NPCs exist just to hand out quests, sell items, and spit out some lore from time to time. The game setting and story feel like bog-standard fantasy - there's not anything really to hook you. It honestly gives a NWN sort of vibe in terms of telling a "basic" story of a party of low-level generic adventurers.

I will say I really liked how the turtorial was set up though - as a series of bar tales which the party members were telling to one another.
I'm checking out both. Both have their pros/cons. The camera in BG3 is just wonky (finally figured most of it out). Neither one have the "tilt" that I'd like, but oh well. It's been ages since I played BG series, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter, etc.

The characters are hideous in Solasta (my High Elf looks like a hunchback of notre dame).

I like the turn-based combat, but that's me. Playing Dragon Age series, I found myself constantly pausing anyway to switch characters, change tactics, etc.
Neverwinter (MMPORPG) is OK with live action but you only have one character.

Not quite liking the 4 character limitation of both, but DA series does the same. With D&D I'm finding that without multi-classing you need more than 4. thief/rogue is required, IMO, along with "fighter", healer (cleric) and magic user. But that's the very basic. I'll live/survive though.

Haven't gotten nearly as far in Solasta vs. BG3 though, but only recently downloaded Solasta like 3 days ago.
Originally Posted by Moebius

Not quite liking the 4 character limitation of both, but DA series does the same. With D&D I'm finding that without multi-classing you need more than 4. thief/rogue is required, IMO, along with "fighter", healer (cleric) and magic user. But that's the very basic. I'll live/survive though.

Mmm? One thing about 5e and all the games based on it is that any character could "rogue". Not better than a rogue, of course, but a rogue character is not mandatory like in previous versions. You can train other classes to sneak, disable traps and locks, steal, etc.
Just pick your high-dex character (like the ranger) and give him/her the lowlife background and that´s it.

That said, a bigger group would be appreciated. I understand in bg3 you have the 4 coop-party limitation, but I do not get why they do the same in an SP game like Solasta too.
Originally Posted by Telephasic
I downloaded it today, and have played a bit (now up to level 3). My thoughts.

1. Combat is indeed much more fun/rewarding in Solasta than in BG3.

2. The camera is super-easy to work with in comparison to BG3.

3. The interface is much simpler, though it feels a bit unfinished at the same time, insofar as the design doesn't seem entirely appropriate for a fantasy RPG.

4. The way that party dialogue works means the game has basically no roleplaying to speak of. You create all four of your characters, giving them unique classes, alignments, backgrounds, and a few personality traits. But when you talk to NPCs, you are basically given four options - one for each character. That means that there's really one, and only one thing each character can interject at a given time. The characters are all 100% voice acted, which is nice in a way, but there's simply not quite enough flavor put into each one to give a real idea that each of your characters has a unique personality. I mean, my mage chimes in with history/arcana lore from time to time, and people recognize their co-religionists, but my Paladin has said pretty un-Paladin things as well.

5. Once you take out all the mechanics stuff, it's just not as good of a game, period. The game appears to be almost entirely linear, and outside of combat mechanics, each encounter seems to have been designed to have one - and only one - successful outcome. This is much more simplistic than what Larian is attempting to design. NPCs exist just to hand out quests, sell items, and spit out some lore from time to time. The game setting and story feel like bog-standard fantasy - there's not anything really to hook you. It honestly gives a NWN sort of vibe in terms of telling a "basic" story of a party of low-level generic adventurers.

I will say I really liked how the turtorial was set up though - as a series of bar tales which the party members were telling to one another.


pretty similar to my breakdown a few pages ago, right now the gameplay of combat feels better (I dont think combat having multiple approachs is more true in BG3 than Solasta though, some environments are pretty diverse in solasta with multiple approaches, especially as you start getting more abilities). But in terms of the bulk of content, BG3 feels better. It's why I hope they look at Solasta combat and realise what they're doing wrong, as cleaning up BG3 combat would make it strictly superior in every way. But right now I get irked by too many things in BG3 combat to truly enjoy the gameplay.
I was playing Neverwinter Nights 2 Mask of the Betrayer and BG3 reminds me of that game, where you have powers from an outside influence so to speak.

I've seen some complaints about the Story for Solasta that it is boring on steam, and don't know about that.

I am planning on getting Solasta eventually since I already have this
Originally Posted by Iszaryn
I was playing Neverwinter Nights 2 Mask of the Betrayer and BG3 reminds me of that game, where you have powers from an outside influence so to speak.

I've seen some complaints about the Story for Solasta that it is boring on steam, and don't know about that.

I am planning on getting Solasta eventually since I already have this

Solasta is definitely (for the EA) a more "down to earth" story, it doesnt start with epicness and craziness that doesn't make sense for level 1 newbie adventurers lol.
That said, its story is also very very linear, which isn't great. Hopefully they take their feedback on board and consider adding more dialogue options and story forks. Apparently most of the planned side content isn't there yet which is also likely part of why it feels as linear. From what i can see, it seems like its story will get crazy eventually though too, maybe not /as/ crazy as BG3 though laugh Story/narrative is definitely Solastas weakpoint (along with character models which arent really up to par for cinematics and cinematic dialogues these days but are plenty good enough for isometric.
Originally Posted by blindhamster
Solasta is definitely (for the EA) a more "down to earth" story, it doesnt start with epicness and craziness that doesn't make sense for level 1 newbie adventurers lol.
That said, its story is also very very linear, which isn't great. Hopefully they take their feedback on board and consider adding more dialogue options and story forks. Apparently most of the planned side content isn't there yet which is also likely part of why it feels as linear. From what i can see, it seems like its story will get crazy eventually though too, maybe not /as/ crazy as BG3 though laugh Story/narrative is definitely Solastas weakpoint (along with character models which arent really up to par for cinematics and cinematic dialogues these days but are plenty good enough for isometric.


(Haven't played Solasta yet, but I've followed it for a while and now I've looked at character creation and some gameplay bits.)

Solasta appears to me to mostly aim to be a great dungeon crawler with some bits to make it feel like a party experience. I was going to compare it to IWD (which, I admit, I haven't played either yet, though I have an idea of its "style"), but earlier you said you don't think this comparison is apt. Would you mind elaborating on that?

Solasta visuals are all over the place. From my brief observations, environments/creatures look quite nice if somewhat dated (typical for indies, I'd say), character models are... terrible and animations surprisingly ok. There was this weird disconnect between model quality and animation quality. That was my impression, anyway. (The UI looks like a placeholder, but I think it could be entirely solved by simply changing the colours and adding a "fantasy" texture - wood, stone or paper. Say, dark blue stone for UI background and gold for borders/text.)

As for what BG3 could "steal" from Solasta... apart from 5e/combat stuff - custom character "flavour". Way of speaking. Personality flags. Better backgrounds. Of course, it's going to be harder to implement in a cinematic AAA game...
Originally Posted by Iszaryn
I was playing Neverwinter Nights 2 Mask of the Betrayer and BG3 reminds me of that game, where you have powers from an outside influence so to speak.

I've seen some complaints about the Story for Solasta that it is boring on steam, and don't know about that.

I am planning on getting Solasta eventually since I already have this


I prefer clean easy to follow stories and by that I mean not get bogged down with many quests (sides) doing completely different things all at once. IMO that is bad game design for me.

So who here has played DND modules that have all kinds of different stories going on at once vs the just the story at hand?

I think there is a difference between a singular story and linear, while having both of those it is the most basic method, at the least you totally get the story. However it is nice to have a singular story with branches so you can get different endings for more play throughs and yes something more than right at the end you have 3 choices. Something meatier than that. Is still a singular story but like Choose Your Adventure novels, if you are clever you can choose better.

So if anything Solasta is keeping things very clear and easy to remember, I'm ok with that. Just make me more modules and perhaps over time you can make those come together in some way for a larger over-arching story.

To Blindham I like to foster devs, so if what they are doing now is what they can accomplish and do well, then we can just hope that each module they release they keep adding and honing in. Pretty much how Larians been doing since DOS. I'm good with steady improvement.
The Solasta devs were talking about 'verticality' as a major part of their game way before BG3 devs started talking about it in their game. Credit where credit is due.
Played Solasta EA and its the closest experience you can find for DnD 5e on a computer. They have completely nailed the mechanics.
The only two things I really want Larian to emulate from Solasta are:

1. The combat log! It's SO GOOD in Solasta, and so bad in BG3.
2. Click somewhere, the whole party makes any jumps necessary to get there automatically.

As a bonus thing, have you seen/heard the Magic Missile spell in Solasta? Holy crap it looks and sounds amazing.
I like the options to have dice rolls visually in Solasta, it's neat and does very well to flavor the experience as a DND game.

What's really disappointing is how they couldn't implement all the PHB's armors and weapons. No flails, no whips, no reach weapons, and I've not seen breastplates for example, but that might be because they weren't available at the shop yet, I don't know.

They've got a really solid base they could heavily expand on, so I hope they find success!
After playing Solasta for a couple of hours I feel BG3 is heavily missing out by not including some of its features. Some of these aren't even a matter of preference, they're outright quality-of-life implementations that definitely improve the experience for the player.

1) Reactions in combat - Larian's reason for not implementing these was that it'd slow down the flow of combat. After playing Solasta I can safely say that this is not the case. When an opportunity arises the game gives you a message telling you that you have the option to perform a reaction, for example an attack of opportunity on an enemy that's moving away from you, while giving you the option of performing the said action or ignoring it and saving your action for later. This feels very natural and does not slow down the combat at all. In fact I'd even say it feels like it makes it even more engaging since it gives the player agency during the enemy's turn rather than making you sit and watch them run around.

2) Followers automatically jumping over chasms/obstacles - Anyone that has played BG3 will know how much of a source of frustration it is to have to select all four party members one by one and have them jump across a crevice. In Solasta your companions will automatically jump across if you've crossed a chasm. It's such a huge quality of life improvement that I'm afraid I won't be able to live with BG3's implementation which, to be sincere, is very clunky in its current early access stage.

3) Dodge action & Readying actions - Forgoing your turn in favour of preparing an action (usually attacking an enemy that enters your range) adds another layer of strategic depth. It solves the problem of feeling like you're 'wasting' your turn in the cases where you are unable to perform any other meaningful actions. Another unseen benefits of having this is that your characters gets to 'do something' even when it isn't your turn. In multiplayer games combat can often feel boring you get very little screentime, but this provides you the option to essentially think outside of your turn by offering you actions that can be performed later.

A final note which, admittedly, mostly is a manner of preference is that I really like how Solasta presents the dice rolls during combat. They happen simultaneously with the action so you can see the roll (and your modifiers) without combat being slowed down in any way. While I doubt everyone would be interested in seeing this added I would greatly appreciate if this was a toggleable option in the final release of the game.
Originally Posted by Ocece
I like the options to have dice rolls visually in Solasta, it's neat and does very well to flavor the experience as a DND game.

What's really disappointing is how they couldn't implement all the PHB's armors and weapons. No flails, no whips, no reach weapons, and I've not seen breastplates for example, but that might be because they weren't available at the shop yet, I don't know.

They've got a really solid base they could heavily expand on, so I hope they find success!


Solasta doesn't have the license to use PHB material, only SRD material, and even there they didn't have the budget to do everything iirc.
I think no one made a comment about the travelling and camping mechanics in Solasta.

I do not know how´s going to be in BG but the camping, crafting and travelling options in Solasta seem fun. There are still some things that are not implemented (Some placeholders state that it´s still in the making, like the scavenger services) but right now that adds some spice to the game.


Originally Posted by Bukke
After playing Solasta for a couple of hours I feel BG3 is heavily missing out by not including some of its features. Some of these aren't even a matter of preference, they're outright quality-of-life implementations that definitely improve the experience for the player.

1) Reactions in combat - Larian's reason for not implementing these was that it'd slow down the flow of combat. After playing Solasta I can safely say that this is not the case. When an opportunity arises the game gives you a message telling you that you have the option to perform a reaction, for example an attack of opportunity on an enemy that's moving away from you, while giving you the option of performing the said action or ignoring it and saving your action for later. This feels very natural and does not slow down the combat at all. In fact I'd even say it feels like it makes it even more engaging since it gives the player agency during the enemy's turn rather than making you sit and watch them run around.

2) Followers automatically jumping over chasms/obstacles - Anyone that has played BG3 will know how much of a source of frustration it is to have to select all four party members one by one and have them jump across a crevice. In Solasta your companions will automatically jump across if you've crossed a chasm. It's such a huge quality of life improvement that I'm afraid I won't be able to live with BG3's implementation which, to be sincere, is very clunky in its current early access stage.

3) Dodge action & Readying actions - Forgoing your turn in favour of preparing an action (usually attacking an enemy that enters your range) adds another layer of strategic depth. It solves the problem of feeling like you're 'wasting' your turn in the cases where you are unable to perform any other meaningful actions. Another unseen benefits of having this is that your characters gets to 'do something' even when it isn't your turn. In multiplayer games combat can often feel boring you get very little screentime, but this provides you the option to essentially think outside of your turn by offering you actions that can be performed later.



That makes two of us +1000

I will also add that in Solasta you can take cover behind obstacles and the IA does not attack downed party members.

the UI is far more player-friendly: You do not have 2 buttons, one for sneak attack/battlemaster/etc melee and another for ranged, the bonus-action spells are separated from the others so you can pick them at first glance, the powers are in another tab, etc.
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Originally Posted by Moebius

Not quite liking the 4 character limitation of both, but DA series does the same. With D&D I'm finding that without multi-classing you need more than 4. thief/rogue is required, IMO, along with "fighter", healer (cleric) and magic user. But that's the very basic. I'll live/survive though.

Mmm? One thing about 5e and all the games based on it is that any character could "rogue". Not better than a rogue, of course, but a rogue character is not mandatory like in previous versions. You can train other classes to sneak, disable traps and locks, steal, etc.
Just pick your high-dex character (like the ranger) and give him/her the lowlife background and that´s it.

That said, a bigger group would be appreciated. I understand in bg3 you have the 4 coop-party limitation, but I do not get why they do the same in an SP game like Solasta too.


Oh, thanks! I didn't know that. Will give it a try.
Originally Posted by Telephasic

4. The way that party dialogue works means the game has basically no roleplaying to speak of. You create all four of your characters, giving them unique classes, alignments, backgrounds, and a few personality traits. But when you talk to NPCs, you are basically given four options - one for each character. That means that there's really one, and only one thing each character can interject at a given time. The characters are all 100% voice acted, which is nice in a way, but there's simply not quite enough flavor put into each one to give a real idea that each of your characters has a unique personality. I mean, my mage chimes in with history/arcana lore from time to time, and people recognize their co-religionists, but my Paladin has said pretty un-Paladin things as well.

A lot of the personality traits overlap one another, yeah. I've been trying out various combinations to try and see if I can come up with four very distinct and different personalities.

One note though, in 5E Paladins aren't bound to be LG anymore. You can have a Paladin who's chaotic, neutral, or even evil. There's no such thing as a "Paladin personality" anymore, since they're just people who are warriors of their god. And if their god is a jerk, well, the Paladin can be a jerk too. smile

That said, it WOULD be nice if some of the dialogue were tilted in alignment directions a bit more.
© Larian Studios forums